Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 9

< September 8	September 10 >

September 9

Category:Tolowa people

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Tolowa people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. This category will never be well populated since there are only 1,200 living Tolowa people and only one of them has a Wikipedia article. Category:Tolowa is completely adequate for articles pertaining to this tribe. Uyvsdi (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Keep – part of Category:Native American people by tribe. People categories are intended to capture defining characteristics of a person, and this is defining. Oculi (talk) 10:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the creation of categories for specific tribes is acceptable. There actually are at least 2 articles on Tolowa people. Also the present number of population is not telling us of how many of these people there may have been in the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:37, 11 September 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:Casinos by year of completion

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. — ξ ^xplicit 02:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Casinos by year of completion to Category:Buildings and structures by year of completion

Nominator's rationale: Merge and merge the subcategories appropriately. We already maintain Category:Casinos by year of establishment (and subcategories) which is confusingly similar and most casinos would end up being categorized in the same year in both schemes. (In the sense that, say, Eldorado Hotel Casino would appear in both Category:Casinos completed in 1973 and Category:Casinos established in 1973). Upmerging the "by year of completion" scheme also allows for more flexibility because not all casinos occupy buildings that were initially built as casinos. Pichpich (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Casinos by year of opening -- The important issue is when it opened as a casino, not when the building was finished. Where the casino was not purpose built, it may have been "completed" a century or more before it opened. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would stick with the "by year of establishment" format. It's understood as a synonym for "year of opening" and it's really the standard for this type of category, for instance the similar Category:Shopping malls by year of establishment and Category:Event venues by year of establishment. Pichpich (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question are there enough articles on casinos to justify the by year of establishment cats for them, or is there some more inclusive category we could put them in?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Initial note: the categories were started by Vegaswikian and it would be nice to have his input on that but I just noticed that he's on a short wikibreak and that it might be courteous to extend this CfD accordingly) Now to answer that question, casinos are a bit tricky to categorize in the existing "established in" [1] because they're not necessarily "event venues" (which would be the least bad choice imo). Similarly I'm not sure there's a good place to put casinos among the existing Category:Buildings and structures by year of completion. Pichpich (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you dig down through Category:Casinos by country or List of casinos the answer is yes. This is a new tree that is not being populated while this discussion is underway. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Established and opened are not the same. The building by year structure categories keep getting added to and goes over 200 articles. So breaking out into subcategories is logical. The problems with many of the articles on casinos is that they cover both a casino and a hotel. So since we categorize by hotels completed in, we need a corresponding casino category. Otherwise someone can move it into the hotel category and the casino kind of vanishes into a branch of the building tree. This is also a reasonable category to manage the size of buildings and structures completed by year. Finally if this is upmerged, why not do every subcategory? This branch is fairly new and barely populated. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with points made by VW1 directly above .MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:51, 11 October 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:Monorchism and monorchid people

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

The result of the discussion was: speedily deleted per G5.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 14:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Monorchism and monorchid people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Created by block evading sock/troll, possibly linked to banned user as well. Regardless, do we need this? I can't think of the encyclopedic value of a category of people or articles that are related to having a single testical, but I can see a BLP nightmare in trying to maintain such. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:57, 9 September 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:Forced suicides by nationality

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: upmerge Category:Forced suicides by nationality to parent category, keep Category:Forced suicides of Chinese people. — ξ ^xplicit 02:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Forced suicides by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose upmerging Category:Forced suicides of Chinese people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Forced suicides (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that sorting out 15 Chinese entries from the parent category of 28 articles is really required. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 13:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A number of notable forced suicides aren't in the category (eg. Socrates) and, were the category properly populated, a division by nationality would be more useful. Additionally, subcategorization by nationality has the potential to help readers interested in cultural reasons and differences. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles do you think could be added here? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge the nationality category, but keep the Chinese one. The fact that there are 15 Chinese cases makes it singificant. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment forced suicides would be a fairly common thing to do considering various codes of honour that require suicide in certain situations. (and if not performed, some worse penalty enacted) -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and create Category:Forced suicides of Japanese people since there are already enough people to populate that category. Ryan Vesey 19:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What BrownHairdGirl said below:Create the category I proposed, keep the Chinese subcat but don't create the container category for by-nationality unless we get more nationalities that would require one. Ryan Vesey 19:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Category:Forced suicides by nationality to Category:Forced suicides; we don't need a container category for one or two sub-cats. But keep Category:Forced suicides of Chinese people, as an adequately-populated subcategory of Category:Forced suicides. No objections to creating a Japanese sub-cat as well, if there are enough articles to populate it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge the by nationailty cat, keep the Chinese cat. I see no reason why we need a lone container sub-category at all. Until we have some other set of by category subdivisions of forced suicides, I really do not see the need to have a container category for the by nationality sub-categories. This is especially true when we have less than 5 nationalities with their own categories. I agree with BHG that subdividing forced suicides by nationality can work if we have enough in a given nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 2 October 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:Black metal albums by genre

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 to Category:Black metal albums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Black metal albums by genre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge--sub-subgenres don't need to be further categorized. There is no need to diffuse Category:Black metal albums. Alternately, if we do decide to do this, it needs to be applied to several dozen such genres--not just one sub-sub-genre. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – same reason as other noms. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless and a potential POV firefighting nightmare. There are currently two categories in this section for which the articles have been repeatedly deleted and probably salted (black ambient and "melodic black metal" are not subgenres, and no sources have ever been provided discussing them as such, so the categories need deleting as well). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (second choice: upmerge to the black metal albums category.) Subdividing small genres tends to isolate albums in many small categories that readers have a hard time finding. Pichpich (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per POV concerns. The current genre sub-categories within should either be nominated for deletion or upmerged to Category:Black metal albums or Category:Heavy metal albums by genre. How to sort that out may be best left up to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:23, 10 September 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:Black metal albums by artist

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 to Category:Black metal albums. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Black metal albums by artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge--this breaks the entire tree of albums by artist and albums by genre. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this is to store "[insert artist here] albums" categories. Having them in Black metal albums makes that category, which also contains black metal albums by genre and release type, a mess. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge back to Category:Black metal albums. Pichpich (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Black metal albums. This category is not populated enough to require such diffusion at this time. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:14, 10 September 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:Black metal albums by type

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 to Category:Black metal albums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Black metal albums by type (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this back to Category:Black metal albums--I have no idea what purpose this serves. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – it is to store the "Black metal albums" categories by type of release (e.g. studio album, EP, compilation album, etc.) so that the Black metal albums category is easily navigatable/not messy. I think four pages/categories within a category is an acceptable amount. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The purpose is now clear but it's not a good idea. The link between, say, two black metal EPs is tenuous and the intersection is not meaningful. Pichpich (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. It serves its purpose in and provides easier navigation from Category:Black metal albums. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:11, 10 September 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:Finno-Ugric world

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

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CfD 2012 September 16, to allow a fuller consensus to be reached. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Finno-Ugric world to Category:Finno-Ugric-speaking countries and territories

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think the best way to deal with this category is to make it a subcategory of Category:Countries by language per Finno-Ugric peoples which states "The Finno-Ugric peoples are any of several peoples of Europe who speak languages of the Finno-Ugric language family, such as the Finns, Estonians, Mordvins, and Hungarians". Tim! (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category: Finno-Ugric countries and territories. As Finno-Ugric is a language family, not a language itself, -speaking seems somewhat awkward; however thiere is precedent in the form of Category:Celtic countries and territories‎ and Category:Slavic countries‎ for the name without "-language" as it's part of the family, as it were. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per The Bushranger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bushranger -- This is a good solution, thgough I wonder whether Category: Finno-Ugric lands might be even better. I chose "lands" as a suitably vague term that can cover both countries and territories but I expect I will be told that this is copntrary to precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:35, 15 September 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:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify

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

The result of the discussion was:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 22#Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify. — ξ ^xplicit 02:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Filing this as deletion, but I don't really want to delete this category. Rather, I'm suggesting moving this to where all other WikiProject categories reside, the talk page. Why this one WikiProject's category should be on the articles themselves is quite beyond me. Courcelles 02:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hidden maintenance category like all other maintenance categories. Ryan Vesey 02:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is it named as a wikiproject category? If it is a maintenance category, it should be something along the lines of Category:All articles requiring wikification Courcelles 03:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a broader category not linked to a specific maintenance tag. See Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify and it's subcategories. Category:Articles that need to be wikified already exists, but deals specifically with those articles tagged with the deprecated {{Wikify}}. Ryan Vesey 03:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify has the pages directly in that category where all other Wikiproject categories reside, the talk page. Besides, how do we need both Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify and Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify? They're the same thing. Courcelles 01:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - One is an all category, it has a list of all pages in the category. Ryan Vesey 01:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "all" one is for counting totals ({{PAGESINCATEGORY:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify}} = 196 ; {{PAGESINCATEGORY:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify}} = 27,121), the other is for each backlog category (dead end, add infobox, etc). benzband (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a backlog tracking category for WikiProject Wikify. benzband (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does this one Wikiproject category need to be different than all the others on talk pages, though? No one has yet to answer why a wikiproject category should ever be in mainspace. Courcelles 01:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - {{Wikify}} and the whole wikification system is currently undergoing some long overdue maintenance. I understand your concern, but in this case--and despite the name--this isn't really a Wikiproject category. As far as I know, this category was created just so that there would be something broader than Category:Articles that need to be wikified. I would support Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify being renamed to the older category name, and then Category:Articles that need to be wikified changed to "Category:Articles tagged with Template:Wikify" or something similar. Nolelover ^Talk^·^Contribs 13:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem here is the ambiguity of the term "wikify". As noted above, the category in question is a superset of Category:Articles that need to be wikified; the category in question also includes categories like Category:Articles with too many wikilinks and so on. "Wikify" should only refer to one definition; it should either mean "needs more links" or "needs layout/formatting cleanup". I suggest a new term be designated for either one definition or the other. Or, perhaps, the entirety of the category in question could be merged with Category:All pages needing cleanup? Guoguo12 (Talk) 15:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. As noted here, in the new TfD discussion for Category:Articles that need to be wikified, I think this category should be renamed to "Articles that need to be wikified", or some other more descriptive name (if possible). Guoguo12 (Talk) 20:23, 24 September 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.