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. Jafeluv (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Very few if any additional episodes of this series are likely to be or become independently notable so this category will never get any larger. The two episodes are linked to each other in the articles themselves, through the episode list and through other articles which feature them both. 71.150.253.197 (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't get why the "there's other categories like this" idea overrides the idea of tiny little categories that can never get any bigger. 71.150.253.197 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a principle found in the guideline that talks about small category overcategorization. See WP:SMALLCAT. There's not really any way of knowing which principle takes precedence in any given case. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 180 TV episode categories and there have been tens of thousands of TV series. It appears that categorizing TV episodes at the series level is the exception and not the rule. 70.226.164.143 (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could be—I wasn't expressing an opinion one way or the other, just pointing you to the rationale that was referred to that you seemed to have a question about. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an appropriate use of a WP:SMALLCAT since it's part of an established category tree, and as Occuli says, it's a defining, or the most defining, characteristic of the article subjects. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? You want nine categories filled with nothing but redirects to the episode list and then a parent category for the redirect categories? Does that seem like a sane proposition, maintaining ten categories for two articles and 220 redirects? 76.201.154.20 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Only content is Bering Strait (band), which consists of Russians but was founded in the U.S. A Google search has found no other notable Russian country music groups. So if there's only one example, it would make more sense to categorize them under Category:Russian musical groups since there's no point in getting a whole category to themselves. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Attempting to standardize these to their various category trees' formats. We removed nearly all "-related works" categories here, except for the widely used "LGBT-related" construction. I think the term "intersexuality" is the right one here, but I wanted to make sure that made sense to people.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename, books "about" has the same problems as all "about" categories: how much about the subject must it be, and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing for the overturning of the entire "Works about" structure?--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WEakly oppose "Intersex" is different from LGBT, which results from a mental attitude. This is about people who suffer from certain rare conditions which mean that they are neither male nor female, but something in-between. I am not sure that the appropriate noun for the condition is; I am not convinced it is "intersexuality", which sounds too like "sexuality", but that is more about the expression of masculinity or femininity than about the nature of either. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Intersexuality is the noun used in the Intersex article, and its main category is Category:Intersexuality. I don't know enough about the subject to know if those are wrong, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: That sounds fine to me. -- Sjschen (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, categories should follow the main article when possible. Nyttend (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Solely Indian lists at present and fits neatly with the category tree. Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename - looks like a simple error in the name.--Northernhenge (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but someone might suggest a better naming Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
REname as nom. "Community" seems to be a euphemism for caste or subcaste. The term is certainly so used. This is primarily an Indian phenomenon, so that the creation of parallel categories for other nationalisites will probably not be necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Kepler" is an ambiguous name, but I'm unsure what this should be renamed to. "Kepler planets"? Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, yes, that's completely ambiguous. "Kepler planets" seems good, but I know very little about astronomy... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support some sort of rename. The current name is horrid. It's not about the telescope itself, or the person its named after, or Keplerian dynamics, the Kepler Input Catalog (KIC), the Kepler Objects of Interest (KOI)... etc. "Kepler planets" however may be confused with the Kepler model of the Solar System, or Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Or the planets Kepler used to create the laws. Suggest Category:Kepler space observatory planets instead. If we wish to restrict it to planets discovered with the Kepler space telescope then Category:Extrasolar planets discovered by the Kepler space program would be good. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are atleast three different catalogues associated with the Kepler mission, "Kepler xyz" (Kepler confirmed planets), "KOI xyz" (Kepler Object of Interest) and "KIC xyz" (Kepler Input Catalog). 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't categorize by mission, vehicle, instrument, etc. of discovery for any other astronomical objects other than extrasolar planets. I would still like to see a justification for this.- choster (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – an improvement. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The number of extrasolar planets is going to explode in the years ahead, so the use of sub-categories seems like a necessity. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. When the number of extrasolar planets explodes we can revisit this. In the meantime, there's not so many that we can't put them all in Category:Extrasolar planets.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, with only 716 extrasolar planets discovered thus far, we're hardly going to overload a single category. ;-) Regards, RJH (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Non-defining, trivial characteristic. In cases where it is relevant to a member's notability (whether for being particularly humane or for being particularly abusive), there are probably other categories that would be appropriate. Alternately, I'd be okay with a strict guideline about inclusion that requires that foster parenthood be the basis of the member's notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Even if siginificant, there are important privacy issues in relation to this. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2011 (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:Parents who survived their children in the Holocaust[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I don't see that this is a notable intersection. Upmerge if the members don't already appear in the parent cat, but surviving one's children appears to be, while sad, a trivial intersection for Wikipedia purposes. (WP:OCAT) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- Not a significant characteristic, particularly as children were separated from their parents and killed on arrival. Accordingly, this will be a very common characteristic among survivors. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2011 (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.
