Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 10

< February 9	February 11 >

February 10

Category:People for Assyrian descent

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete as empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Non-populated; probably created by mistake. ... discospinster _talk 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Dive sites

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:Underwater diving sites; "locations" was offered as an alternative to "sites", but there was more support for use of the latter. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP is not a travelogue. Per Wikipedia:NOT#TRAVEL. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diving locations -- Alan Liefting-talk- 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many of these are defined by having been notable dive sites. Now, if we can clean the category to remove the counties and other broad areas. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vegas, and Rename to Category:Underwater diving sites per Otto below. The AfD nomination linked by the nominator appears already to have lost the project some useful information, as the sites were not in fact (and why not?) merged or listified. How else would many of these articles, like Blue Hole (Red Sea) be classified? Badly mistaken nomination. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why are we categorizing places by what happens there? Next we'll have skydiving sites, hockey sites, basketball sites, couch potatoing sites, love-making sites.... etc... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.... sports stadia, ski resorts, race-tracks of various sorts .... the horror, the horror.... :)Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vegas. It seems perfectly reasonable to categorise Portsea Hole (say) as a Dive site. Carminis (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To anyone who's ever waited tables, "dive sites" sounds like it ought to include "DewDropInn.com". Please rename to Category:Diving locations or something better if kept. — CharlotteWebb 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Underwater diving sites to match parent Category:Underwater diving per the underwater vs competetive rename that took place a while back. Otto4711 (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support this. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Had I noticed the parent category, I probably would have suggested "Category:Underwater diving locations" but obviously any of these choices is better than the status quo. — CharlotteWebb 14:56, 15 February 2008 (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:The Great American God Out

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: article-ify to Great American God-Out. Listing for deletion is left to editorial discretion. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category contains only one article, already included in a larger atheism category, and a good deal of text, some of which might qualify as a separate article, but almost all of which is certainly at best unnecessary for the category itself. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article-ify and delete - Clearly intended to be an article, not a category, by an editor who didn't know the difference. It's a plausible article topic, if not a reasonable category (unnecessary eponymous category for an event, and categorizing people or organizations or things by their relationship to this event would be overcategorization). --Lquilter (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lq. I'd say articlify, but it doesn't seem notable to me. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and article-ify per Lquilter. I'm undecided on notability, perhaps it is appropriate to turn it into an article and then list at AFD? --Beloved Freak 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and article-ify per Lquilter. It seems marginally notable - plenty of google mentions but I couldn't find anything substantial. Carminis (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article-ify and delete per Lquilter. Notified creator with {{cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2008 (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:African Footballers of the Year

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. Conscious (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - nominated once previously as a then-single item category. It was populated but it's still overcategorization by award. A complete list of winners of the various awards that have been presented under the name African Footballer of the Year exists at African Footballer of the Year. Similar categories for Asian footballers and Scottish footballers were deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - As applied to players, this is overcategorization by award; these players have numerous affiliations and awards already. The article is kinda pretty. --Lquilter (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major award. Or consider together with Category:European Footballers of the Year and Category:FIFA World Players of the Year (Asian and Scottish are arguably less prestigious). Carminis (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree we should consider the European category with this one. I'm not sure if FIFA is exactly parallel? --Lquilter (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the European category to the nomination. A complete list exists at Ballon d'Or. Otto4711 (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both as major awards for footballers to win as individuals (as opposed to championships etc won with a club). Consensus last time was to keep and rename, and nothing has happened in the meantime to make me think that this is overcat by award. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both per Bencherlite (to clarify my position above). (I agree that the FIFA one is not parallel.) Carminis (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both ocat by award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both LeRAM (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2008 (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:Pashtun Mafia members

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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pashtun Mafia members to Category:Opium Mafia members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. (1) Pashtun Mafia is highly offensive. Pashtun Mafia implies that Pashtuns are all criminals. (2) Pashtun Mafia is used on google seven times less frequently than Opium Mafia. It is best to remove ethnicity from this. Kingturtle (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - calling the Pashtun mafia the "Pashtun mafia" no more implies that all Pashtuns are criminals than Category:Sicilian Mafia clans implies that all Sicilians are. "Opium mafia" scores 11 Google news hits to "Pashtun mafia"'s two but Pashtun mafia gets close to 1700 Google hits versus "opium mafia"'s 565. Our article is at Pashtun Mafia. Otto4711 (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto. I think the name of the main article should be controlling here. Snocrates 20:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match main article, which should probably be renamed. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Don't rename per Otto, I don't think that the name implies that all Pashtuns are criminals. That's not the impression I get, anyway. Keep for consistency with main article. --Beloved Freak 18:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename unnecessary ethnicity/race category otherwise. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without renaming per Otto. Doczilla (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2008 (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:Pashtun Mafia

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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pashtun Mafia to Category:Opium Mafia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. (1) Pashtun Mafia is highly offensive. Pashtun Mafia implies that Pashtuns are all criminals. (2) Pashtun Mafia is used on google seven times less frequently than Opium Mafia. It is best to remove ethnicity from this. Kingturtle (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - calling the Pashtun Mafia the "Pashtun Mafia" no more implies that all Pashtuns are criminals than Category:Sicilian Mafia clans implies that all Sicilians are. "Opium mafia" scores 11 Google news hits to "Pashtun mafia"'s two but Pashtun mafia gets close to 1700 Google hits versus "opium mafia"'s 565. Our article is at Pashtun Mafia. Otto4711 (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto. I think the main article's name should be controlling here. Snocrates 20:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match main article, which should probably be renamed though. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Don't rename per Otto and for consistency with main article. --Beloved Freak 18:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename unnecessary race/ethnicity cat otherwise. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Otto. Doczilla (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2008 (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.

San Jose, California

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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in San Jose to Category:Buildings and structures in San Jose, California

Category:Geography of San Jose to Category:Geography of San Jose, California

Category:Companies based in San Jose to Category:Companies based in San Jose, California

Category:History of San Jose to Category:History of San Jose, California

Category:Transportation in San Jose to Category:Transportation in San Jose, California

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous given all of the places with this name. In addition this matches the main article and Category:San Jose, California. Current sub cats use a mix of the two, this nomination would unify the subcats. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom for disambiguation and to match main article. Snocrates 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all for disambiguation and consistency. --Beloved Freak 18:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all for dab & consistency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. We need consistency; dab matters. Doczilla (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. For all the reasons given so far. Stepheng3 (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Good reasons are given above. Gentgeen (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2008 (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.