Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 23

< May 22	May 24 >

May 23

Category:Pericope Adulteræ

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

The result of the debate was delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category includes one article and one image and is not foreseeable expandable. Seems like a clear cut case of overcategorization. We don't have a category for the Comma Johanneum (nor should we). The original creator blanked the page at one point in time, so possibly this category was created by mistake. Andrew c 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would in fact make a good picture category, which is perhaps what was intended, but that should be on commons. Johnbod 04:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ravenhurst 01:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:English-speaking countries

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

The result of the debate was rename (to make more inclusive). — CharlotteWebb 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English-speaking countries to Category:English-speaking countries and territories

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, After attempting to add Falkland Islands to this category, I was "reverted for vandalism" because it's "not a country". However, there are other British Overseas Territories and other such "non-countries" included in the category and I suspect the editor's political views may have had a part in his reverting. Rather than edit war, I thought to bring it here. Similar categories to the proposed renaming are viewable here Bnynms 18:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, to make the category more inclusive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod 04:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: people are using it already for territories. --Mariano(t/c) 13:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as better, although not perfect because "territories" is ambiguous (are Australian Capital Territory, Yukon Territory, Northern Territory, and Chatham Islands to be added to this category), but more fundamentally, I question the usefulness of these place-by-language categories. Carlossuarez46 18:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Countries" is used as shorthand for "countries and territories" in umpteen category names, starting with Category:Countries. Jamie Mercer 22:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Jamie Mercer. Too many categories are ending up with unwieldy and diificult-to-remember names because of unnecessary hair-splitting. The word "country" has many meanings, sovereign-nation is just one of them. Roger 08:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Villages in Oxfordshire without Lamp Posts

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete nonsense. Vegaswikian 06:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Villages in Oxfordshire, non-defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Greg Grahame 19:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. This is far too trivial to merit a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - and WP:DAFT this category's name! Grutness...wha? 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright. The single entry in this category is already in Category:Villages in Oxfordshire. The creator of this category has a record of making bad-faith edits and has been warned for vandalism. I'd even lean toward speedily deleting the category as nonsense, if that can be applied to categories. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- G1-Nonsense applies to categories. Vegaswikian 06:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 11:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy, nonsense. Roger 11:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. The one article is already in Category:Villages in Oxfordshire. Jamie Mercer 22:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Heavy metal Greek keyboardists

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom and per convention --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Greek heavy metal keyboardists, convention of Category:Heavy metal keyboardists. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather Merge it up to the parent category, along with the Category:American heavy metal keyboardists, Category:English heavy metal keyboardists, and Category:Swedish heavy metal keyboardists subcategories. Seems like keyboarding + ethnicity is a trivial intersection. Tarc 19:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This is no more trivial than any other by-nationality subcategorization of musicians, which is essential because of the high number of articles about musicians. Greg Grahame 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This is part of a widely-used, well-established schema used on thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of musician articles, and reasonably-well documented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization. Xtifr _tälk 20:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per both editors above. Haddiscoe 11:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Definitely backwards.--Mike Selinker 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Malaysian people by state

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

The result of the debate was rename all to "People from Foo". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to People from Foo. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Also, the creator of all these categories has gone around creating a bunch of other messes which need to get cleaned up. See Special:Contributions/Kulim. Aargh. cab 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Ravenhurst 01:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- There was this secondary nomination which I'm moving from speedy: Category:People Born in the State of Perak to Category:People of Perak as per convention of Category:Malaysian people by state cab 05:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, see related nomination -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Super Smash Bros. fighters

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Note that the TfD discussion on the template also ended without consensus, so this issue may need further discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Category is organized poorly, a template {{Super Smash Bros. series playable characters}} is far more useful. myselfalso 15:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. --- RockMFR 15:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they come from different series, so we should have a category so people can easily reference what type the games they're originally from. Anubiz 18:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If I understand the contents of this category, it is for characters from various Nintendo franchises that are playable in a separate game series. This doesn't strike me as a defining characteristic of the individual characters. Lists of the playable characters exist in the articles for each of the game and a master list exists in the article for the game series. I see no need for this category. Otto4711 17:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Super Smash Bros is an epic franchise yet very few characters out of the mass majority have stared in it. OBEY STARMAN 18:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unless, of course, the template is also kept. The template is currently also listed for deletion - one should be kept and the other deleted. This category takes up less space than the template, so I vote to keep this one... unless the template stays. --Bishop2 19:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use the template. It appears that the template will be kept. The template provides context that you can not get on one page in a category so using a template is clearly superior to a category. Having the category in addition to the template adds nothing to navigation. Vegaswikian 19:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator wishes for the template to be kept, and is attempting to delete the category to warrant its existence. On top of that, a category is more appropriate than a template. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? The template is much clearer and provides more information. Even a list for this type of information would provide more information and be better organized. Vegaswikian 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no precedence to use templates or lists in place of categories. And better organized? Templates are big, and not in any specific order. Categories are small and out of the way, and they always in ABC order. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I didn't nominate this category for the point of keeping the template; that would be rather POINTy. A number of users suggested deleting the category rather than the template; I made the move to nominate the template for deletion. --myselfalso 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - 'No precedence'???? Have you followed any of the discussions about converting categories to lists? Some categories have also been replaced by templates. So I don't know where you are coming from with that claim. Templates can be in any order including alphabetical. In addition the entries can be grouped much like they are in the template that is competing with this category. You can't do that on one page in a category. Bottom line, categories, lists and templates are useful tools. They are all good in some places. Sometimes all three might be the solution, other times only one. Vegaswikian 06:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the simple reason that the template is much more useful and clean than this sloppy category page. Powerslave (talk-contribs) 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Unless you propose all categories be deleted, since this is not a sloppy-looking category by any means, that's not a good argument. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template provides more information, and is more accessible to (read: obvious to) readers browsing the articles. --Luigi Maniac 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, I'm still waiting for some reasoning as to why categories should be given preference. Any category with a reasonable number of articles that fall under it, you could say "hey delete, cause categories suck and templates look cooler". - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A reason for categories? Well, they can have subcategories. Plus, they can be used when there are too many articles for a template to handle. The thing here is that we don't need subcategories, and what category can this be under? Not many, especially due to the third party characters. Also, there are enough characters to warrant a template, but not enough that a category would do the job that much better. --Luigi Maniac 00:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What? So it's better to have a massive template than a compact category? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Massive? Are we looking at the same template? Vegaswikian 06:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If that's massive, then I don't know what to call the Solar System table template... --myselfalso 17:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Is this the kind of logic where massive only applies to the most massive template you can find? The category is much smaller, takes up lass space - both in kb and in space taken up on the page - and does the job just fine. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Odense BK players

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Odense BK players to Category:Odense Boldklub players

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, As the article for the club has been moved from Odense BK to Odense Boldklub, it would be more logical this category also was named Odense Boldklub players, instead of the current. ka la ha 15:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Joe 22:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Coats of arms of Tonga

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Tongan coats of arms, convention of Category:Coats of arms by country. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Tim! 17:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I created the category. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:French crime novelists

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

The result of the debate was rename. — CharlotteWebb 23:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:French crime fiction writers, convention of Category:Crime fiction writers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Tim! 17:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Bulldog123 13:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Doczilla 07:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Military of Wales

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

The result of the debate was rename --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military of Wales to Category:Military history of Wales

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, An editor complained about this category in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Spurious category Category:Military of Wales. it was felt the name was not broad enough for the scope of the material included. A consensus emerged that the category be renamed and category:Military history of Wales would be consistent with numerous other Military history of Foo-type categories.Roger 15:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems consistent (and more accurate). Carom 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Wales hasn't had its own military forces for hundreds of years, and arguably it never had a national military in the modern sense. Greg Grahame 19:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (it didn't stop them conquering Ireland though, did it!)Johnbod 03:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Spay/neuter organizations

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

The result of the debate was merge --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Animal welfare organizations, don't they all do this? -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, there is only one article in this category. This category is too specific, the parent category is not overpopulated yet. -Andrew c 00:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

By-year subcats of Category:Natural disasters by year

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 11:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming all the by-year sub-categories of Category:Natural disasters by year from the format "Natural disasters in YMCD" to "YMCD natural disasters" per convention of things-by-year categories (including the parent category Category:Disasters by year, and to facilitate use of the {{Year by category}} template, which relies on the "YMCD foo" format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Rename per nom. I prefer MCDY whatever to Whatever of MCDY wherever possible. Tim! 16:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The existing form is more elegant. Greg Grahame 19:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sub-categories of Category:Disasters by year are rare exceptions to the convention of Category:Categories by year, which is MCDY whatever or MCDY in whatever. Categories trees such as these are much easier to use if they follow a consistent format, and a significant part of CfD's workload is standardising category names. I see no good reason why natural disasters (and a few other disaster categs which I will nominate tomorrow) should be an exception to the convention which works for dozens of categories including in all sorts of fields, including Category:Years in architecture, Category:Disestablishments by year, Category:Establishments by year, Category:Crimes by year, Category:Conferences by year, Category:Elections by year, Category:Films by year, Category:Law by year, Category:Singles by year, Category:Television awards by year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "XXXX Y" sounds like an Americanism to me, and the convention is that we don't switch to American English where British English is in use. Haddiscoe 11:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply In countless other category trees, we have standardised the naming format for consistency, which makes the categories easier to use for both editors and readers. Since these categories are global, I see no reason to prefer either British or American formats, but all the usual strong reasons to standardise do apply. It doesn't make sense to have "Natural disasters in YMCD" a subcategory of "YMCD disasters". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. follows the normal convention. Carlossuarez46 18:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note see a further group nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 26#By-year subcats of Category:Transportation disasters by year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per above. All of our other year-based categories have the year at the beginning of the title, even in cases where this could easily be misinterpreted (such as "6 deaths"! Nobody's complained about that yet, but if this is a major concern we should reverse the naming of all categories, but whatever we do the year categories should all follow the same pattern). — CharlotteWebb 19:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "XXXX YYYY" form is ugly and ambiguous. As there is no reason to use it other than consistency with bad precedents, it would be better to start making an effort to move the convention the other way. Hawkestone 23:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Conventional naming of these cats makes a great deal of sense while the arguments for non-standard naming are weak indeed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:37, 4 June 2007 (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:R. Kelly

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with many other eponymous categories that have been deleted lately, the material in this category does not warrant it. All of the relevant material is easily interlinked through the text of the various articles and the navtemplate. Otto4711 13:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as a superfluous eponymous category per WP:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people. (well done Otto for nominating so many of these) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unwarranted eponymous category. Doczilla 07:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't the harm, in general, of having a container category to tie a musician or band's album category, the song category, and the discography page together for faster and easier navigation. — CharlotteWebb 19:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Current Albums

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

The result of the debate was delete. — CharlotteWebb 23:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... when does an album stop being Current?, at least rename to Category:Current albums. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, hopelessly vague category. This could mean albums currently in the charts (but which chart?), the latest album by an artist, albums currently in the publishers list of available products, or simply albums that don't sound dated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Grahame 19:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; recreation. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 22#Category:Current albums. –Unint 20:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation and salt, per Uninit (changing my !vote) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G4, at least until Current (band) become notable. Joe 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla 07:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Agricultural Companies of Australia

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

The result of the debate was rename, as nominated.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Agricultural Companies of Australia to Category:Agriculture companies of Australia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Convention of Category:Agriculture companies by country plus speedy. Greg Grahame 12:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename to Category:Agriculture companies of Autralia. Shocklord 15:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Films with a rape theme

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

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorization. Flex (talk/contribs) 11:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OC in a nutshell -- Cat ^chi? 11:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not for reasons given. Greg Grahame 12:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what reason, then? --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the same WP:OCAT concerns that the graphic female rape category should be deleted. Categorizing films by the scenes they contain is overcategorization. An article on the depiction of rape in film would be very interesting though. Otto4711 13:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Over-categorization. Tarc 13:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for vague "rape theme". Theme does not have to include the topic directly and is therefore subjective. Doczilla 01:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doczilla. Bulldog123 13:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that must be deleted because is the same as the Category of Films with a pedophile theme. And is ot overcategorization because the category of films about rape applys were rape is the central theme, this is about evry movie with a mention of rape. AGAIN, SMILAR TO THE PEDOPHILE CASE. I do think that the Films containing graphic female rape category shut be eliminated. It's even sexist. But this particular case seens important for me. Spockdg
- You're right. The pedophile theme category needs to go too. Although a number of the films so categorized include child mollestors, pedophilia has nothing to do with the theme of most of them. Thanks for pointing that out. Doczilla 07:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Arison family, Category:Binion family, Category:Bonds family, Category:Bostwick family, Category:Braxton family

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

The result of the debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia has quite a lot of categories about families. Clearly that is useful for extensive families, such as Category:Baldwin, Evarts, Hoar & Sherman family. However, the five mentioned above are very small and unlikely to grow any time soon, so they would appear not to be necessary. Note that all of these are already covered in lists, articles and/or name dab pages. Also, Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. >Radiant< 10:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These seem less problematic than Category:Baldwin, Evarts, Hoar & Sherman family, which seems rather overextended and tenuous, as many of the relationships involved must be very remote. Greg Grahame 12:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what makes those categories useful! When there are only 3 brothers, as in the recent Reichmann family nomination, a category is unnecessary. Johnbod 17:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - family relations are best explained through linking the family members together through the articles and/or articles on the family. None of the nominated categories are necessary to organize the material they contain. Otto4711 12:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- see my comment below...by deleting all of these family categories you all are slowly wiping out the supra-categories that are above them, thereby reducing the overall effectiveness/usefulness of ALL categories and undermining the whole concept of categorization on Wikipedia (i.e., info progressively broken down in to more manageable chunks). --Wassermann 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The parent categories are not being deleted. They are serving as containers for articles about the various families. Otto4711 20:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all though the Bostwicks might be ok in future with more articlesJohnbod 04:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -- this absurd 'pick and choose' method of deleting family categories is very detrimental to Wikipedia. You state that they are: "...unlikely to grow any time soon," but where does it state that categories and articles MUST always grow? Also, categories are generally better than lists for organizing information at the macro level. I'd advise you all to please stop deleting these valid family categories and to let them stand as the organizational tools that they are. --Wassermann 16:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- by the way...through the deletion of all of these categories you people are effectively emptying the supra-categories that these categories fall under such as Category:American families, Category:Business families, Category:Israeli families, and so forth. Eventually, as these categories are slowly deleted, the above mentioned supra-cats. will become useless because they won't contain any information and will then be deleted as well, which means that all of the editors that built these categories basically wasted their time trying to better organize/compile information here on Wikipedia solely because 2-3 'voters' here on the CfD page decided to wipe them out after a dubious nomination. So, the lesson of this is to please stop deleting valid categories. Are all of you running out of the obvious stuff to delete on Wikipedia and must now turn to deleting valid information? If this is the case, please try ADDING a few things. --Wassermann 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the categories are useless to begin with, it's hard to see how this could make them so. This over-categorization fetish needs to stop. So the lesson here is please stop creating useless categories. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the claim that these categories are "useless" is your own POV. It's quite funny how you only vote on these CfD pages when you are opposing me -- how convenient it must be, Jayjg. Also, I just don't see it as overcategorization if hundreds of other family categories already exist and have for a while; we are building up the supra-cats. --Wassermann 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would like a general deletion discussion on family categories (like Wassermann) but putting too many cats in issue simultaneously has, in past practice, been a waste of everybody's time because the closing admin always finds it easier to find "no consensus" and tells everyone to "list them separately" than to parse through the comments and be WP:Bold in carrying through what consensus has been reached. Carlossuarez46 18:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- it's too bad though that the so called "consensus" reached is so very often only 2 or 3 people, which means that in actuality it isn't one at all. --Wassermann 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Only a small number of families have enough famous members to make this kind of categorization worthwhile, and these don't qualify. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- "being famous" is relative, and who are you to say that these people "don't qualify"...you are being POV; for people that know anything about business, the Arisons and the Reichmanns are a couple of the top business family names in the world. Since you know nothing of this subject, of course you don't see them as being famous or notable enough to have their own categories (by the way...the Arison family category has been populated even more, debunking the claim made above that "they will never grow"). --Wassermann 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Casuarius

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

The result of the debate was keep as part of scientific classification hierarchy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary over categorization of the small family Casuariidae. Peta 01:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is part of a hierarchy of classifying animals by genius, so it should be kept, even though it may contain very few articles. Dr. Submillimeter 07:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Dr Johnbod 11:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Dromaius

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

The result of the debate was keep as part of scientific classification hierarchy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary over categorization of the small family Casuariidae Peta 01:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is part of a hierarchy of classifying animals by genius, so it should be kept, even though it may contain very few articles. Dr. Submillimeter 07:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Dr Johnbod 11:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Cuisine of Kentucky

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

The result of the debate was rename for consistency. — CharlotteWebb 19:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cuisine of Kentucky to Category:Kentucky cuisine

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, all the other state/city subcats of Category:American cuisine by region take the format "place cuisine". Peta 01:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Indigenous peoples of Asia

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

The result of the debate was all kept, except for the one which never existed. — CharlotteWebb 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not particularly see the use of this. (clarification: I feel it is pointless to categorize people by continent instead of country. Countries are more specific and better defined than sub sections of countries) -- Cat ^chi? 01:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps you might want tho extend this nom to all the subcats of Category:Indigenous peoples of Asia since there seems to be a scheme in place. Deleting one out of a larger classification seems pointless.--Peta 01:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may just do that, in fact I will. This categories ethnicities which are generally not categorised by geography but by country since it is more specific. Country of origin makes more sense than continent of origin. -- Cat ^chi? 11:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After re reviewing. I think I am more comfortable with a Category:Indigenous peoples of Asia rather than subdivisions. -- Cat ^chi? 12:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Asia is a very big continent with a lot of indigenous peoples (e.g. Category:Indigenous peoples of Southeast Asia contains 43 items). Why exactly do you prefer them upmerged? (the comfort of editors is not a purpose of the category system). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly it is difficult to agree on the subdivisions, secondly it is redundant. It isn't like there are millions of indigenous ethnicities in Asia warranting such sub division. Hence, I suggest a merge to Category:Indigenous peoples of Asia. -- Cat ^chi? 09:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep This and all the associated categories here look useful. No other argument was presented against these so this argument for these should suffice. Hmains 02:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a sub-category of Category:Indigenous peoples of Asia, which is in turn part of Category:Indigenous peoples. Per Peter and Hmains, no reason has been offered to delete this particular part of that category tree rather than any other part, so if the nominator's arguments are as stated, they would only be relevant to a group nomination for the whole of Category:Indigenous peoples and is subcategories.
There are clear substantive reasons to keep this category: indigenous peoples are a significant and well-referenced area of academic study and of wider debate, and subcategorising them according to geographical regions such as Southwest Asia seems like a sensible way of connecting them to other regional categories.
I notice that the nominator is User:White Cat, who was renamed today from User:Cool Cat. Cool Cat had a long history of nominating for deletion a long list of Kurdish categories, sometimes repeatedly renominating the categories (see e.g. 1, and 2, the latter having been nominated 4 previous times by the same editor: A, B, C, D). A bunch of related nominations have targeted categories which are parents of Kurdish categories, and sure enough Category:Indigenous peoples of Southwest Asia includes a Kurdish category (Category:Kurdish people. In view of this editor's history and the vague reasons in the nomination, I suspect that Cool Cat/White Cat/Chi's anti-Kurdish campaign is the real reason for this nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats ridiculous. If you have such a claim, take it to arbcom. Stop waisting everyones time. -- Cat ^chi? 11:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing ridiculous about it at all. Your long history of targeting Kurdish categories and their parents is well-documented in countless previous CfDs. The waste of everyone's time comes from all these cycles of WP:POINT nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I am so disruptive, why aren't you taking it to arbcom. -- Cat ^chi? 09:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it takes too much time and energy to do so. It's simpler to note the disruptiveness when it happens, and in any case the longer you keep up the disruptiveness, the clearer the case will be when someone gives up the time to seek enforcement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The revised nomination does not make clear whether the proposal is for deletion or upmerger, but in either case my response is still "keep". Non-country categorisations are particularly useful and appropriate for indigenous peoples, whose geographical extent often does not coincide with the boundaries of nation-states. The articles and categories on specific indigenous people can of course be categorised by country as well, but many readers will find it more convenient to use the regional categories rather than have to burrow through long lists of indigenous-people-by-country categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a merge request. Sub continental divisions aren't particularly useful. Also see reasons stated above. -- Cat ^chi? 09:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for reasons stated above.A Musing 17:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose whatever nom ends up being, per those above. Johnbod 04:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't oppose a nom, you can either vote keep/merge or delete. -- Cat ^chi? 09:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for the reasons stated above. Carlossuarez46 18:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, although I disclose my interest as the creator of these categories. Per BHG and others, the notion of indigenous peoples is unquestionably a viable and broadly-referenced one; by-region classification is entirely appropriate, modern political boundaries have little to do with the range and claims of indigenous peoples' traditional lands.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Introduced Species

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

The result of the debate was delete both because nearly all common species have been "introduced" somewhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Introduced species. Although I have to say for an international encyclopedia such a general category is quite useless.Peta 01:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Doczilla 05:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - So many plants and animals are introduced in so many locations that categorizing them this way is awkward. Ultimately, being an introduced species somewhere is not really a defining characteristic. The subcategories should be nominated for deletion as well. Dr. Submillimeter 07:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The uselessness of these categories escapes me. Johnbod 10:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It just seems like a huge fraction of plants and animals are introduced species in at least one country or island chain somewhere. For example, see the List of bird species introduced to the Hawaiian Islands. Many of these birds occur naturally in most other places where they are found; most people reading Wikipedia would not consider the Mourning Dove or the Barn Owl to be an introduced species in the locations where they live (if they have such birds where they live), but the birds could be called "introduced species" because they were introduced to Hawaii. Dr. Submillimeter 12:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well unless they live in Antartica or on a remote island, it seems they will have barn owls. But neither bird is in either category. The category as it exists (small s one) seems perfectly ok to me, with members whose articles deal with specific issues around introduction. Johnbod 04:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My point is that the Mourning Dove and the Barn Owl could be technically placed into this category because they were introduced in Hawaii and thus their articles could discuss "specific issues around introduction" to Hawaii (or at least I could write referenced information about the subject). In most places outside of Hawaii, however, the Mourning Dove and the Barn Owl are not considered to be "introduced species". The same could be said for many other animals. This system of categorization simply is not practical. Dr. Submillimeter 08:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As it now exists the category seems fine. I would not support a deletion of a useful category now on the basis of what might happen in the future. The "introduced birds" category has been around since September 06. I agree not every species capable of being in the category should be added. Johnbod 11:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - However, someone will try to add some of these animals to these categories if they qualify. This has happened before. (I also do not find the classification of "introduced species" useful myself. An introduced species in one place is native to another place.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Deleting the category/ies would be counterproductive, since there's scientific value to identifying introduced species. (Or at least invasive species. Garlic mustard and Buckthorn, for example, are becoming hugely invasive problem plants in Minnesota, and lakes are being invaded by zebra mussels and Eurasian milfoil.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This does not represent a worldwide view of the plants and animals. Simply because animals are introduced or invasive in Minnesota does not mean that they are introduced or invasive everywhere else in the world. The house sparrow, for example, may be an introduced species in North America, but it is a naturally occuring species in Eurasia. Dr. Submillimeter 08:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Further to Dr. Sub's comments: Horse, chicken, cow, rat, wheat, rye among thousands of others are introduced species in the Americas; turkey, tomato, potato, maize among many others are introduced species in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Africa. And what do zebra mussels really have in common with horse? ah, yes, and that's the rub. Carlossuarez46 18:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a category for invasive species. --Peta 23:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which is rightly a sub-category of this; the distinction between the two being pretty POV in many cases. Johnbod 04:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a species is only "introduced" in certain locations; in others, it is native. Which means that this is ambiguous and arguably non-defining. On the other hand, I think a category for lists of introduced species, like the List of bird species introduced to the Hawaiian Islands mentioned above, would make a lot of sense! A lot more sense than the current category, at any rate. Anyway, I just wanted to toss that out as something to think about. Xtifr _tälk 01:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A Category:Lists of introduced species would be more useful than a category for any animal that could be called an "introduced species" somewhere. Dr. Submillimeter 08:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed it would; but there are few (if any) such list currently on wikipedia. --Peta 10:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I counted eight existing "introduced" and "invasive" list articles. Presumably, if the existing categories were listified, this would increase the number to over 10. This would be plenty for a category. Dr. Submillimeter 11:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both these are not useful; nearly all common species have been "introduced" somewhere, nearly every edible or commercially grown plant, domestic animal, pet, fish-bowl denizen, inhabitant of ornamental or botanical gardens, all will clog up this category when you are really trying to find brown tree snakes in Guam, say. Lists are much better for such topics because you can separate them into what people are likely looking for. Carlossuarez46 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Dr. S., after some reflection. I note that it sounds like nom had his own doubts about these categories to start with. As per my own earlier comment, I think that lists are the proper way to address this topic. Xtifr _tälk 07:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.