Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 29

< January 28	January 30 >

January 29

Category:Geography of the Orkney Islands

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) 02:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Geography of the Orkney Islands to Category:Geography of Orkney

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate category, so merge to name consistent with article Orkney and Category:Orkney, and its other subcategories . Vclaw (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Orkney is the archipelago, same thing.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 11:02, 30 January 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:TSSAA Mr. Basketball

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a category where a list article would better suffice (which it does). Jrcla2 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If category is kept, it should be renamed Category:Tennessee Mr. Basketball to match the lead article. No opninion on nomination.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Category shouldn't be kept though, per the fact that a category is obsolete when a list can better present the information, and since not every award needs categorization – especially state-level high school sport-specific awards. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Low-level award; listification (already done) is normal practice for these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 6 February 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:Shopping malls in Cary, North Carolina

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:

Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 15. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Shopping malls in Cary, North Carolina and Category:Shopping malls in Durham, North Carolina to Category:Shopping malls in the Research Triangle, North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: Cary and Durham categories are somewhat small (Cary has only two in it), and Raleigh category larger. As a defined metropolitan area with a widely-used name, all three should be merged into one category. This would also match it with the other "X in Research Triangle, North Carolina" categories that are already established. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should that be Category:Shopping malls in the Research Triangle, North Carolina (cf. Category:People from the Research Triangle, North Carolina)? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge 2, Leave 1: Propose upmerging Cary and Durham to the state-level cat and leaving Charlotte unchanged. I appreciate your effort to try and eliminate all these small categories but I'm not sure grouping malls by metropolitan areas is the right solution. If you look at the states under Category:Shopping malls in the United States, they tend to have no subcats or 1-2 for major cities. In contrast, Category:Shopping malls in North Carolina is much more granular but the state doesn't have the article count to justify that structure. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:49, 31 January 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:Shopping malls in Winston-Salem, North Carolina

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:

Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 15. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Shopping malls in Winston-Salem, North Carolina and Category:Shopping malls in Greensboro, North Carolina to Category:Shopping malls in Greensboro – Winston-Salem – High Point metropolitan statistical area

Nominator's rationale: Winston-Salem only has two malls, and Greensboro three. Merge these two categories and include the three malls in High Point, and sufficient content exists for a subcat of Category:Shopping malls in North Carolina. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge all 3: I appreciate your effort to try and eliminate all these small categories but I'm not sure grouping malls by metropolitan areas is the right solution. If you look at the states under Category:Shopping malls in the United States, they tend to have no subcats or 1-2 for major cities. In contrast, Category:Shopping malls in North Carolina is much more granular but the state doesn't have the article count to justify that structure. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:56, 31 January 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:Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina

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:

Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 15. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a small town, contains only main article and high school. WP:OCAT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Both can be placed in Category:Wake County, North Carolina.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with 5 articles: There are now 5 articles in the cat with a half dozen notable buildings that gives the cat room for growth. RevelationDirect (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 31 January 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:Wikipedians giving their support to Wikimedia CAT

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) 02:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: As the category description indicates, this is a category of users who use (via transclusion or substitution) the templates {{Wikimedia CAT}} and {{Wikimedia CAT2}} to express support for "creating a local Wikimedia chapter for Balearic Islands, Catalonia, and Valencia". It is, therefore, a category which groups users by advocacy of a position (see here and here for extensive precedent against "support/oppose" user categories) rather than a characteristic which could be useful for encyclopedic collaboration on the English Wikipedia.

More generally, while the scope of the issue (creating a local chapter of Wikimedia) is appropriate for Meta-Wiki (and there is a list of members and supporters on Meta), it is beyond what can be accomplished on en.wikipedia. Editors can, of course, continue to express their support for Wikimedia CAT via the userboxes, but there is no need to take the additonal step of maintaining a distinct grouping of users (userboxes should not include user categories by default). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 09:02, 31 January 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:Vice Presidents of the United States who have shot people in peacetime

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. Courcelles 09:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Created 28 Jan 2011. The title says it all. WCCasey (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Overcategorization on the basis of a characteristic that is trivial or non-defining, and which results in a category that is small and has little potential for growth (unless VP Biden and surviving former VPs have things planned...). I was inclined to assume that this was created to poke fun at Dick Cheney, but the detailed category description and the inclusion of Aaron Burr lead me to think otherwise. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. It wasn't intended as a jibe at Cheney; I added both Burr and Cheney at the same time and thought others might be interested in this historical curiosity. These were the two examples that obviously spring to mind but I'd like to check out the other VPs to see if there were other accidental shootings in the past (Burr's case is likely the only deliberate one). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspected as much given the clarity of the inclusion criteria. However, the issue of "historical curiosity" is part of the problem: the fact of having shot someone in peacetime is not a characteristic that is defining for either VP. Categories, however, should be based on "essential, 'defining' features of article subjects", and not on incidential ones. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Was Cheney actually shot in peacetime? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The category is "who have shot people," not "who have been shot." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should have been, was the shooting by Cheney in peacetime? Vegaswikian (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a defining characteristic by any understanding. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was certainly a defining moment for Alexander Hamilton... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a labored case of guilt by association. Are we going to have a category for the ones who shot people in wartime? Mangoe (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that as a counterpart category. While we know which VPs served in the military during wartime, it's much harder to establish whether they shot anyone. Candidates would include Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy among others. I don't understand the reference to "guilt by association." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We categorize people based on core defining characteristics that are fundamental to their encyclopedic notability (like being vice-presidents of the United States), not historical curiosities. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic, not a defining characteristic.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-defining characteristic of the individuals included. Alansohn (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization and material way better just discussed in the article. Besides, Cheney didn't shoot anyone in peace time—as he and his boss were so ready to remind everyone, the U.S. was at war at the time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sitting U.S. Vice Presidents who have shot people and Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents. postdlf (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we can't make up our mind if they are sitting or standing... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Basically a re-creation of Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 14#Category:Vice Presidents who have shot people. Grutness...wha? 23:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that's the kind of level of CFD participation we need. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Much too specific. Categories are a navigation aid, not a variety of bullet point (pun not intended). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 4 February 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:Washington (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Washington (U.S. state) to Category:Washington (state)

Nominator's rationale: Per the recent (and unanimous) requested move discussion on the article's talk page; see Talk:Washington (state)#Requested move - Washington (state). Once the main category is renamed, the subcategories can be handled via the speedy renaming process. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Washington has been notified. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all categories that include Washington (U.S. state) should be renamed as well. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. (see also Category:Bridges in Washington (U.S. state) below.) – Allen4names 19:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming per nom.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to reflect renamed title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - since parent article is renamed; and as an aside, here in BC we often write or say "Wshington State" (capital or lower-case) though usually when saying "we're going down to Washington for the weekend" there's no doubt it's not DC that's meant...by this I mean the parentheses seem superfluous to me though Category:Washington state I guess just wouldn't work wiki-wise, nor Category:Washington State (and of course that latter one, when used within Washington, would tend to mean the university at Pullman.Skookum1 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I'd just like to point out that dammit, I was right in the first place to propose Category:Washington (state). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Lonely Oppose We should keep Washington's categories in sync with Category:Georgia (U.S. state) as this is an instance where article and category namespaces have different issues. (Based on the discussions of a sovereign state in Talk:Georgia, nominating to move the Georgia article would be non-constructive.) RevelationDirect (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Washington and its editors do not exist in a vacuum; U.S. states ought to follow the same naming patterns for ease of linking and maintenance. Georgia (U.S. state) cannot be reduced to Georgia (state) as the latter could be read as "the nation state of Georgia (country)," thus the use follows U.S. state.- choster (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, the naming pattern which dominates is Category:{State}, absent any parenthetical disambiguation. In fact, 48 of the 50 U.S. state categories follow this pattern, and Category:Georgia (U.S. state) and Category:Washington (U.S. state) are the only exceptions. In addition, following the renaming of the article Washington (U.S. state) to Washington (state), Georgia (U.S. state) is the only U.S. state article which uses that particular form of parenthetical disambiguation.
  It's true, of course, that Georgia (U.S. state) cannot be reduced to Georgia (state) since the U.S. state happens to share a name with a sovereign state/nation state, but Washington (state) does not have the same problem, thereby making Georgia (U.S. state) the exception rather than the standard. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think anyone disagrees with your summary of the state names above, Black Falcon. The question is should we have two different exceptions (so that WA saves 5 characters) or should we have one exception (at the cost of WA carrying 5 extra characters)? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you look beyond the United States categories, then it's clear that the exception is having to add "U.S.". It's clear that the default disambiguator is "(state)", so Washington would be conforming to the global standard, not creating an exception. It's also a bit nonsensical to have the category name and the article name use different disambiguation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with your first statement about (state) globally. For the sake of this conversation, let's stipulate that Washington (state) is a "standard exception" and Georgia (U.S. state) is an "exceptional exception". RevelationDirect (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        OK. But only if we can call Victoria (Australia) an "exceptionally weird exceptional exception". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Georgia has its present disambiguator, because "Georgia (state)" would still be ambiguous. The other 48 do not need any disambiguator at all. There is thus no need for Washington to match Georgia in style. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 4 February 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:HIV-positive people

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:HIV-positive people to Category:People with HIV/AIDS. Ruslik_Zero 19:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:HIV-positive people to Category:People with HIV

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This looks like the only medical condition category that's in this format as opposed to "People with...". Rename would bring it in line with other similar categories. I Want My GayTV (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the only one (see e.g. Category:Organ transplant recipients, Category:Cancer patients), though it is admittedly in the minority. It's perhaps worth noting, though, that the main article is HIV-positive people. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's splitting hairs, but "HIV positive" is a diagnosis and people can (and too often do) have undiagnosed HIV. I'm not as up on the literature as I used to be but IIRC "people with HIV" is preferred. While it's not proof a Google search shows that "people with HIV" occurs about ten times as often as "HIV positive people". I don't think anyone ever uses a term like "people with transplanted organs". "People with cancer" seems reasonable and possibly preferable since people with cancer can stop treatment and thus no longer be "patients" but that's a completely different discussion. I Want My GayTV (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if people have undiagnosed HIV, we're not going to be categorising them as having HIV, unless we want to get into some shark-infested legal waters. So that part o the argument, at least, is moot. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: Within the medical profession, there is a push for people-first language although I'm not sure how many people who receive medical care actually notice the difference. We should defer to this convention unless organizations representing people with HIV have a clear alternate preference. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rename to Category:People with HIV/AIDS to match common usage and per Category:People associated with HIV/AIDS. --Pnm (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People with HIV/AIDS per Pnm, to match the parent category and the super-parent Category:HIV/AIDS. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:49, 3 February 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:People from Pescadores

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 per nom for consistency with other county people categories. Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Pescadores to Category:People from Penghu County

Nominator's rationale: Parallel with other counties of Taiwan. I admit (and think a bit myself) that "People from Pescadores" has a bit of nice poetic quality to it, but I think consistency is a bit more important. But I'm not completely against keeping it the way it is, so I want to submit it for discussion. --Nlu (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's temporally incorrect though. Before the founding of Penghu County, the islands were still there. Should Penghu County be a subcategory then? 65.93.12.249 (talk) 17:56, 1 February 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:Bridges in Washington (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 per nom (including all subcategories). Ruslik_Zero 15:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bridges in Washington (U.S. state) to Category:Bridges in Washington (state)

Nominator's rationale: To conform to the corresponding article Washington (state). – Allen4names 18:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I just created this category based on all the other categories for Washington, which still say (U.S. state). If this category is to be changed to match Washington (state), all the rest should be changed at this same time. Hmains (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not inclined to make a mass nomination of Category:Washington (U.S. state) and it's sub-categories at this time but if you want to do so feel free. – Allen4names 18:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion for Category:Washington (U.S. state) here. Once the main category is renamed, all subcategories can be processed through speedy renaming. That being said, I see no reason to oppose this nomination unless the nomination for the main category encounters unexpected opposition. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Admrboltz (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Defer to the outcome of the parent rename, above. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close -- When the discussion for the parent has been closed, all daughter categories will need to be renamed to match.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 14:26, February 4, 2011
Rename per the outcome of the discussion above. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to conform to parent category which has now been renamed above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 7 February 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:Flora and fauna of the San Francisco Bay Area

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: speedy delete, CSD G7: good-faith request for deletion by page creator. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: unpopulated, and grouping of both flora and fauna not standard (my own creation, now with second thoughts after examining other categories) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:09, 29 January 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:Television episodes by Tom Hanks

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. Courcelles 09:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete A vague and unnecessary category. First, these are titles of television miniseries, not titles of episodes. Second, what does "by" Tom Hanks mean? He was an exec. producer on both series, directed one episode in each, and he was one of the stars of From the Earth to the Moon. But, does that mean that these series are "by" him? If this category is meant to denote tv episodes he directed, both the name and the content would need to be changed. But this is simply unnecessary and vague categorization. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as we always do with "Performance by Performer" categories. This should apply as much to a director or producer of a minor work (behind the camera) as to one by an actor in front of the camera. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 4 February 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:Basins of the Bay of Biscay

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) 02:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Basins of the Bay of Biscay to Category:Drainage basins of the Bay of Biscay

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basin is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support to distinguish from structural basins.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-name per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:37, 4 February 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:Sevre Niortaise Basin

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) 02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category that is about a river and not a basin. If kept needs renaming to indicate the type of basin. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:40, 4 February 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:Islands of the River Humber

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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 15:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Islands of the River Humber to Category:Islands of the Humber

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the river. Note as a two entry category, deletion is also on the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – there is Category:River islands, subcat scheme Category:Islands by river, which seems reasonable ('Island on the Humber' sounds defining to me). It would be various upmerges rather than delete. Occuli (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment Worse. The article Humber states that Humber is now "only" an estuary, though it used to be a river (during the Ice Ages). Hmains (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the Hudson River south of Albany is mostly an estuary. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Hudson River, however, is officially the Hudson River. The Humber is officially the Humber, and is only colloquially known as the "River Humber". Grutness...wha? 00:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This would bring the category in line with Category:Humber and its other subcategories. Right now this one sticks out like a sore thumb. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:13, 1 February 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.

Alternative Wikipedia accounts by user

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. The information at Category:Ilena's early IP addresses has been copied to User:Ilena per suggestion. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Nominator's rationale: These categories group legitimate alternative accounts by their primary account, which is neither practical on a large scale nor particularly useful.

Practicality — The mean (average) number of pages in each of these categories is ~3.6; the median is 2. Nine categories (~40%) contain only one page and sixteen (~70%) contain less than four pages. The parent category, Category:Alternative Wikipedia accounts, contains several hundred pages directly and approximately 3,000 pages indirectly (mainly through Category:Wikipedia doppelganger accounts). Any attempt to thoroughly categorize alternative accounts by primary user would require the creation of hundreds of additional, sparsely populated categories.

Utility — There appears to be no benefit to categorizing alternative accounts by primary user. Unlike similar categories for confirmed and suspected sock-puppets, there simply is no need to extensively monitor or track the self-declared, legitimate alternative accounts of good-faith users. In any case, such tracking still is possible via user page declarations (see e.g. User:MS10). For personal tracking (i.e. to have a listing of one's own alternative accounts), extensive precedent favors lists within userspace over categories.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. I can see how they could be helpful (enough to justify an oppose in my mind), but they don't seem so useful that I'm willing to all out !vote against the merger. These type of categories could be helpful for sorting through that exceptionally large number of pages in the Alternateive Wikipedia accounts category for those of a particular user (a task that might be made necessary given that some alternate accounts are declared on the alternate account's userpage and not the userpage of the parent account. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What situation did you have in mind which would make it necessary to search for the alternative accounts of a particular user? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Situations where such categories would be used in the way I am thinking of are few and far between, yet very important. A particular situation I can think of is like the situation of User:Access Denied, where such a category for his alternate accounts would have been very helpful for seeking out and blocking accounts that he could use for block evasion and such after his fall from grace...situations like such would make categories where you can search for the alternate accounts of a particular user helpful. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suppose that might be one situation, but it relies on sockpuppeteers voluntarily revealing the identities of their other accounts before they are caught. I'm not very active at WP:AN/I and hardly at all at WP:SPI, but I would assume that doesn't take place often (if ever). In Access Denied's case, the other accounts that existed before the block either were undeclared (e.g. User:Wpeditmanbob2) or obvious (e.g. User:Access Denied's left sock). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, an IP block that's not anon-only would do the trick without needing to identify sock accounts, unless he was using proxies. And even then, someone that motivated to vandalize is just going to create accounts from those proxies, so I question how useful such a proposed use for saving these would be. VegaDark (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nom unless someone can come up with a good reason to categorize legitimate alternative accounts of individual users like this, which I can't think of at the moment. A discussion for the parent category might be in order if this goes through as well. VegaDark (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most into Category:Alternative Wikipedia accounts. I do not have an opinion about the merges to Category:IP addresses used by Wikipedia users. – Allen4names 20:04, 29 January 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:Spouses of Australian politicians

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 without setting precedent for wider discussion about the Category:Spouses of politicians tree. Some of the comments have queried the overall rationale for the category tree; however there's a clear feeling that Australia should not deleted exceptionally. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: DELETE: The only spouses of Oz politicians who are notable purely by virtue of whom they marry would be Category:Spouses of Australian Prime Ministers, which is already a sub-cat, so there's no point in having this main cat. (There's also Category:Spouses of Australian Governors-General, some of whom were politicians in earlier lives, but that's not why they get into that category.) The solitary entry in the cat under discussion is for Marie Galway, however she was not the spouse of either a politician or an Australian. She was the spouse of Sir Henry Galway, who was a British governor of an Australian state, and ipso facto above politics. I suppose there are various men and women who've gained some public attention via their politician spouses and have become either notable or notorious (e.g. Jan Murray, who had sex with her husband John Brown on his Parliament House desk; but even she does not get a WP article). Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the category is because Category:Spouses of Australian Prime Ministers absolutely has to be a subcategory of Category:Spouses of politicians, but it would be inappropriate to have it sitting directly in that category; all of that category's other subcategories are named in the "Spouses of (national) politicians" format. It would also be inappropriate to place Category:Spouses of Australian Prime Ministers directly in the Category:Australian politicians parent, because they weren't all necessarily politicians themselves. So even if this category never has any other content besides Category:Spouses of Australian Prime Ministers, it's still necessary as a step-up between that and the parent categories. That said, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to rethinking the organization of that entire tree — but there's no valid or useful reason to simply exclude Australia from it while leaving the equivalent categories for spouses of American, British, Canadian, Costa Rican, German, Israeli, Japanese, Norwegian, Thai and United Arab Emirati politicians intact; either they're all valid or none of them are, not some yes and some no. Keep or reorganize. Bearcat (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. There might need to be some reorganisation. I've just been clicking a whole pile of links at Category:Spouses of members of the United States Congress and, except for one case, every single person in my fair size sample was either a politician in their own right or had some significant personal achievement worth recording. The fact that they happened to be married to a politician was not what made them notable, and neither should that be the case. If that was all that could be said about a person, they would not merit an article. So, I'd question the basis of this entire "Spouse of <demonym> politicians" tree. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 02:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while equivalent category for other countries stays, and also to link to main category Category:Spouses of politicians. They are "official social partners", and the Canadian & Japanese categories are well-populated. PS Category for siblings of American politicians (eg Billy Carter) was deleted, see discussion of 31 December. Hugo999 (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me get this clear. If a person who happens to be the spouse of a politician merits an article, it's because they're notable for other reasons. They'll get put into whatever categories are appropriate for them, and they can also be put into the relevant Spouse category - after all, the category exists, so we may as well populate it. But if being the spouse of a politician is the only reason a person is known at all, they would not be considered wikinotable, they would not get an article, and obviously they would not be in the Spouse category or any other category. Maybe the category should be renamed "Spouse of *** politicians who are also notable for other reasons". Currently it sort of invites the creation of articles on people whose only claim to fame is being the spouse of a politician, but as we all know, notability is not inherited, nor is it gained by marriage or association, except in some special cases such as First Ladies, spouses of heads of government/state etc. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of naming convention, all categories omit the qualifier "notable", because that's a general article inclusion standard. There's no need to restate it in every category name, even though most categories are not based on intrinsically notable traits. Nor does the existence of a category invite the creation of all possible articles that could fill it. Category:1920 births, for example, does not grant editors license to create articles on every Tom, Dick, and Harry born in that year. Same with Category:American lawyers, which is more on point, because some entries are notable because of their law careers, but not everyone who is a lawyer is notable, and some lawyers became notable for other reasons. Just as some politicians' spouses became notable because of that relationship, others are not notable...and so on. postdlf (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As notability is not inherited, a person should only have an article if they are notable. The existence of this category must not be allowed to encourage the creation of articles on the wives of every political Tom Dick and Harry. I have not doubt we deleted "siblings of Jimmy Carter", because they were all notable only for being that. This category should primarily be a parent category, but no doubt some articles will properly appear directly in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 4 February 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:Posthumous compilation albums

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 19:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Most of the albums in this category are of the "greatest hits" variety in some form or another. I don't consider albums that are just compilations of previously released songs that happen to be released after the artist's death posthumous. Others that actually compile unreleased material can be upmerged to Category:Posthumous albums. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I clicked on a couple of these which included The Great Pretender (Freddie Mercury album) and Acoustic (John Lennon album). There's definitely enough content here out of the 188 articles to have a cat even if you excluded BEST OF albums. I'm not sure if these should be excluded but the nominator's concern leads more to purging than deletion in my mind. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 2 February 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:Seasonal songs

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. Ruslik_Zero 15:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Are these supposed be songs about the seasons or when the song was released? Does mentioning a month or season in the lyrics make it a song from that season? While a song like "Baby, It's Cold Outside" is surely a winter song, there just doesn't seem like these would be too highly populated. Is "I Just Called to Say I Love You" a seasonal song? Is "Magic" by The Cars a summer song? I don't know what constitutes an autumn song. It's just not a well-defined scheme. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These are problematic for the reasons discussed. If it is for time of release, they are even more problematic, since many of these songs were simultaneously released and became popular in Southern Hemisphere markets, where seasons are reversed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 30 January 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:P2PTV

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: speedy delete under G5. — ξ ^xplicit 19:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Created by a probable SOCK of banned User:Mac, I believe this category displays his trademark trait for creating categories for the components of things. It's not as obvious as his categories for chemical compounds but I think the principle's the same. In this case, the parent article explains that "P2PTV refers to peer-to-peer (P2P) software applications designed to redistribute video streams in real time on a P2P network." The category contents include services that use P2P, or did, or make no mention whatsoever. Miro (software) -- which is an application -- makes no mention of P2PTV either, though perhaps that's just an oversight. I see the nominated category as another arbitrary grouping of things that are related to P2PTV, rather than defined by them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been confirmed at User_talk:Diamondland#Blocked that this category was created in violation of sockpuppeter User:Mac's indef ban. I have tagged for speedy deletion accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 29 January 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.