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.
Nominator's rationale: Bringing this here as this needs broader input. This was a recently created category, as a parallel with Category:American LGBT novels. It seems this is indeed a thematic type of novel, and one could make the argument that novelists who write in this theme should be thusly categorized along with romantic, mystery, etc. My problem is with the name - as the cat header states, the people in this category are not necessarily LGBT - they just happen to write novels on this theme. As such, we need a better name, that makes this distinction clear. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as category creator I'm not quite sure what other name you could possibly use. That's why I instead made sure to have the clarification within the category itself on what it should contain. SilverserenC01:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is along the lines of the Chicano novelists category. It really does not work in practicie because it is too hard to keep the modification being applied to the novel and not the author. "Children's literature" is well defined and it is clear that people clearly understand does not mean children wrote it. I am not convinced this is a clear category, and really seems to go against how we use this term in every other biographical category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While a category for novelists who are LGBT may be valid, we really don't need a category for writers, regardless of sexuality, who write LGBT-related novels. For one thing, a straight writer who has written 20 novels of which one had significant LGBT themes would not be properly defined by that fact — John Irving's In One Person, for example, would technically qualify him for inclusion in a category defined that way. A writer who focused exclusively or primarily on LGBT themes throughout his or her career would be different, but only writers who actually are themselves LGBT have any real likelihood of actually doing that — so while a writer's own sexual orientation certainly warrants categorization, the sexual orientation of their characters is not necessarily a defining characteristic of the writer. Accordingly, this should only contain writers who are LGBT, and thus it is a subcategory of Category:LGBT writers from the United States. For the record, however, the LGBT WikiProject has not traditionally supported subcategorizing Category:LGBT writers by nationality subcategories by the individual type of writing that a person does. The American category is getting large enough that we might want to start reconsidering that — but any consensus to begin doing so should be established by discussion, and in the absence of that discussion we should stick to the existing practice. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2013 (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:Spanish loanwords
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.
Support - lots of words in English are of (or arguably of) Spanish language derivation but how the words we use to describe things managed to enter into our language does not connect those things. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are already in the process of being listified per an earlier deletion discussion. A week ago this category had over 150 entries - the list is at List of English words of Spanish origin. I doubt that having a largely parallel "List of loanwords in Spanish" would be useful (especially since they're not "loanwords in Spanish", they're loanwords from Spanish) Grutness...wha?23:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no earlier deletion discussion that links to this specific category, so I thought it needed a separate nomination, even though the principle has been established. When I looked at the contents yesterday, I thought some of the contents were Spanish words from other languages; if they are all used in English, then fine, we don't need the other new list. – FayenaticLondon17:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... somehow it must have not been listed in the previous discussion. I've removed the words that weren't of Spanish origin (a couple of Portuguese ones and Quechua ones). I'll leave continuing working on this one until consensus is reached. Grutness...wha?03:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, they were English words of Portuguese or Quechua origin. IIRC, the Quechua ones were Lagniappe and Jerky, neither of which is Spanish. Grutness...wha?01:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current header would make it a horrible source for a list, so we do not want to listify it as it is. We have pretty much decided this is shared name categorization that should not be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2013 (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.
Blue plaques in ... categories
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 then delete. (They will be placed at WP:CFDWM for anyone interested in doing the listifying. There is quite a backlog, so any help would be appreciated.)Good Ol’factory(talk)02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting (and listifying) the "Blue plaques by London borough" and subcategories. Nominator's rationale:Delete. The Category:Blue plaques categories are placed on a wide variety of biographical articles to indicate that their houses or other locations were designated historical locations in England. This is overcategorization of people by associations (or awards, if you view this as some sort of posthumous recognition/award). The Blue plaques are certainly of historical interest, but having a blue plaque placed on the site of some place important in someone's life does not define an individual. See, e.g., Karl Popper, Paul Robeson, John Maynard Keynes, Sylvia Plath. Lists in the articles are the appropriate places to note the Blue Plaques, not the category system. The creator has done a hell of a lot of work on this information, but categories are not the way to go; the information needs to be converted into the appropriate lists. (Note: I've added in all the Blue plaque categories that attach to people. There is also a Category:Buildings with blue plaques that may present different arguments. AND, the Category:Blue plaques has unfortunately got a lot of individual biographical articles in it, so it needs to be purged.) Lquilter (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just found on the creator's page a link to an earlier CFD from back in 2006: CFD 2006/11/18. I note that a lot of the subcategories here were more recently created, in Dec. 2012 - 2013, so they weren't considered in the earlier CFD. Also, I have to say that whatever one may think about the Blue plaques establishing notability for buildings, it should be pretty clear that the people who lived in the buildings are not defined by the plaques placed on the buildings. --Lquilter (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I had been considering nominating some of these categories myself as non-defining for the people concerned. Tim! (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete. A list for each would be a reasonable idea. I note, however, that many of the categorised articles give no indication of where the plaques actually are - a list giving the locations (street address, building) and sortable by person would make far more sense than simply tacking a category onto the end of a biography. Grutness...wha?03:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LIstify with a merge -- A blue plaque is put on a building becasue a person what some association with it (usually living there). This is far too like a performance by performer category. A list will do the job much better. The association with the place can be retained as a category but mertging each category (or most of them) with the equivalent "people from" catgory. This may then need some purging, where there are blue plaques resulting from something other than residence. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2013 (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:Lists of Celtic languages
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.
Oppose. weak oppose, with comment.Support new name. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but at the moment it matches all the other categories and lists in Category:Lists of languages, which are for language families. The ones in Category:Linguistics lists are for individual languages. Celtic is a group of languages, not a single language, so surely should follow the form for language families. Grutness...wha?03:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The contents do not match the title. They are not lists of languages, but lists of various things by language (Celtic languages, of course). – FayenaticLondon19:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point about it not being specific lists of languages, but neither is it a series of lists about a specific language. There is no such thing as "the Celtic language". As such, it feels wrong that it should be named similarly to Category:Dutch language lists, Category:Tamil language lists or Category:Portuguese language lists, each of which is clearly about a specific language. Any individual language categories within Category:Lists of Celtic languages, yes - there could be a hypothetical Category:Welsh language lists with no problems, since it is an individual language. But the Celtic languages are a group of languages, and as such the proposed format won't readily work. Might I suggest one of two possibilities: either (a), a third format of name, different from each of the other two, is needed; or (b), other categories by language family (e.g., Category:Dravidian language lists) are needed in the Linguistics list tree? (The latter would probably be the easier course of action). Grutness...wha?01:51, 18 May 2013 (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:Education in Idukki
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 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:Curio and relic firearms
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.
Nominator's rationale: The inclusion criteria for this category appear to be that one or more firearms of the type are (summarised from here) manufactured more then 50 years prior to the current date, certified by the curator of an American museum or valuable because of rarity. These may be relevant to US firearm licensing, but they don't make a WP:DEFINING characteristic. It appears (from my sampling) that most of the articles in the category don't mention the "curio and relic" status in the article text (which means there's no cite) hence listification (unless to a talk page) isn't really an option and that the category could be purged/emptied if it isn't deleted. DexDor (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a-not a good way to classify firearms as well, b-to American-centric in its actual application. This is not the American wikipedia and we should not create categories just for the US, unless we can do parralel ones based on regualtions in other countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This appears to the a US-POV category, related to US legislation on gun dealers. We might keep this related to a more general Category:Antique firearms, but I think that differnet counties have differnet views on when a gun becomes and antique. I think that in UK gun-licensing, it refers to weaponms over 100 years old. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2013 (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:Golden Ticket Awards
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Okay, this eponymous category for the Golden Ticket Awards is another amusement park ride award-winner category. The amusement park rides are not "defined" by winning an award that only amusement-park ride insiders are going to know about. This category also includes in it the rides (overcategorization by award) and a trade journal (Amusement Today) in which the winners are announced. It's great that this exists, and it's certainly something that is useful and easy to identify, and so forth, but it's much better handled in the list in the article. --Lquilter (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to support deletion per nom, and to frown at the directory style, single source (and thus derivative work) of Amusement Today. It seems bornerline-notable and looks a bit promotional and lacks third party sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this was just for the awards themselves it might work, but it is being used to group award winners, and there is no evidence this award is notable enough to have such an award winners category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no; there is active discussion at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization about the awards, and it's apparently a bone of contention with some folks. So there's not sufficient consensus at this point to do it. Hence, individual nominations. The Category:Award winners category hasn't been cleaned out in a very, very long time, and like kudzu, it's sprouted prolifically. --Lquilter (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2013 (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:Abdus Salam Award recipients
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. See WP:OCAT#Award. This award for a young (<35yo) Pakistani scientist is prestigious but not defining. It would be better handled as a list, where the recipients can be ordered chronologically, and their field/winning essay can be noted. (All six category members are included in the list in the article for the Abdus Salam Award, by the way, chronologically, although without more information about their essays yet.) Lquilter (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prestigious award. The word "award" understates its significance. The category is far less dubious than some of the many other overlapping categories on the recipient's pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing WP:DEFINING, getting past the artificiality of the definition, it looks straightforward that this award meets WP:DEFINING. It is highly prestigious, awarded to few, and is prominently mentioned in biographries. While under-35 awards tend to be overshadowed by acheivements in later life, close to the time of awarding it is clearly defining. That so many awardees are red-linked is probably an issue of popularity bias. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because an award is "defining" is actually not enough to make it worth categorizing by. The bar is not set that low. An Award needs to be internationally recognized as truly a top ranking award, probably the top ranking award in its specific field and to get wide attention. This award does not meet those criteria. Winning it may well be a sign the people are notable, but that alone is not enough to categorize by it. We generally do not categorize by national level awards in science.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that (internationally recognized) is coming from a western bias. There are plenty of sources showing "wide" attention within the national context. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2013 (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.
