Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 25

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) 00:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Invasive animal species in the Everglades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains two articles about species. For neither of these species is the fact that some members of the species have been found in the Everglades a WP:DEFINING characteristic. For info: An example of a related CFD discussion is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_17#Category:Lessepsian_migrants. DexDor (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. we have Category:Invasive_species, which has many subcats. What is special about this one? Do you just object to dividing the US by everglades?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invasive_species and some of the subcats contain some articles that are about invasive species (i.e. for which it's a WP:DEFINING characteristic) (e.g. this and this) - those categories should be purged. This category contains just species articles and hence can be deleted. DexDor (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my point is, there are lots of species categorized in the wider tree. I think we don't need a sub-national breakdown at this point as it would lead to even more clutter, but your rationale should focus on that, not the "its not defining for the species" bit, I don't think.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That we don't need sub-national breakdown might be an argument for an upmerge of this category, but that argument is redundant as these articles shouldn't be under an "invasive" category at all. So no, the deletion rationale should not focus on it being a sub-national breakdown and anyway there's no/little point in discussing what "the rationale should focus on". DexDor (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of that - there are multiple articles which describe these pythons as an invasive species in the everglades. I guess my question is, if we accept invasive species by country, why not sub-national groupings? I'm not yet convinced either way, but if we did have a subnational breakdown, then those contents would be reasonable per RS.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for proposing deletion of this category is that for neither of the two articles currently in this category is the characteristic (being an invasive species in the Everglades) a WP:DEFINING characteristic (note: it may be important in a US-specific context, but this is a global encyclopedia). DexDor (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But do you think that being an invasive species in New Zealand is a defining characteristic of the Chamois? I'm just trying to understand how your argument might apply to this cat but not many others. The list you gave provided many more examples, so I feel like you're focusing on the content of this category instead of arguing why it should or shouldn't be deleted. Per the list we could add at least 13 other species to this category - so again the question remains, what makes this category ispo facto bad, ignoring the current contents which may be debated.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Species articles (like Chamois) should not be in these categories - see the result of the 2007 CFD (i.e. these categories are for articles/lists like Invasive earthworms of North America).

In reply to an earlier point you made: sure, there are sources that say these snakes are in the Everglades - that's a necessary condition for the articles to be in the category, but does not make it a defining characteristic (i.e. it's not sufficient); sources may also say that these snakes eat rats, breed in the spring etc, but we shouldn't categorize by every fact in the article. DexDor (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after checking that the species are listed in an appropriate article on the Evergaldes -- This feels far too like a performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See List of invasive species in the Everglades. DexDor (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being in the everglades is not defining to the species. This is the type of thing best treated by articles and lists, not categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2014 (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.

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) 00:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional American people by franchise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I think breaking down groups of fictional characters by franchise and nationality is unnecessarily complicated. Since many "franchise" series characters live in author-created and imagined locations and periods of time, further categorizing them by national identity will be limited especially because citizenship isn't always an identifying characteristics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, they belong to many different fictional Americas. Abductive (reasoning) 02:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not really a good plan. Also, I have to wonder if the characters in The Hunger Games really count as Americans. Can you be American if you live after the United States of America has ceased to exist?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2014 (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.

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 to Category:American expatriate sportspeople in Spain and Category:American expatriate sportspeople in the Netherlands respectively, as in practice the articles are already in the other parent categories Category:American expatriate soccer players and Category:Expatriate footballers in Spain / Category:Expatriate footballers in the Netherlands. – Fayenatic London 10:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American expatriate soccer people in Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:American expatriate soccer people in the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-notable triple intersections, see WP:OC#NARROW. Existing categories are more than suitable. GiantSnowman 20:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: These categories are just to much when we already have the ones we do. Also, they are not specific. Are these all the Americans players to have played in the Netherlands or the ones currently playing in these countries. Honestly, these are just unneeded categories. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• ABSOLUTELY VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE! I am FLOORED! It is needed, we have categories like Category:Major League Baseball players from the Dominican Republic and Category:Nigerian expatriate basketball people in the United States, and they pretty much serve the same purpose (players from a specific sport that have played in another country) so why not Category:American expatriate soccer people in Spain and Category:American expatriate soccer people in the Netherlands? And to ArsenalFan700's comment, there are many categories that are unspecific. Case in point, Hiroki Kuroda and Lou Gehrig are under Category:New York Yankees players, a current Yankees player and a player that died in 1941, so should we delete that cat? That argument has no merit, friend. :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwscomet (talk • contribs)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - other sports may enjoy having these categories, but we do not have them in soccerball. You need a better argument than that. GiantSnowman 09:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes we do. For example, Category:Canadian expatriate soccer people in the United States. Billions of people around this globe enjoy soccer, it's the #1 sport in the world (btw, it is not even my favorite sport, (American football) and Baseball are). It deserves to have these type of categories just like the other sports. My mission is to make Wikipedia better. Nothing against you guys. Just putting out my 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwscomet (talk • contribs)

• Delete Realistically being an expatriate player in another country is often such a short part of a person's career that it hardly seems defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alas, looks like it's gonna be deleted... sigh.. Dwscomet (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are existing categories and these are not needed at all. JMHamo (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- part of a scheme with other members of Category:American expatriate soccer players where there are sibling categories, some much better populated. Alternatively, upmerge to all parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. One editor (Dwscomet) taking it upon themselves to try and force a new category tree upon us, against consensus, does not make them notable. They will be nominated as soon as this TFD is closed. GiantSnowman 20:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both and upmerge. A triple intersection is one too far. C679 18:26, 2 April 2014 (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.

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; currently the article is at Mikoyan. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Mikoyan to Category:MiG and Category:Mikoyan aircraft to Category:MiG aircraft

Nominator's rationale: Rename. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#Mikoyan-Gurevich. Brandmeister^talk 18:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Brandmeister, can you summarize the nominating rationale for renaming these categories here, in this proposal? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Per official website, the manufacturer is MiG corporation, while the Mikoyan bureau is one of the four components of it (that is, the aircraft are manufactured by MiG corporation, not Mikoyan bureau itself). The corporate logo itself features only the MiG abbreviation, not Mikoyan. The renaming also encompasses parent articles and related aircraft articles, that use the form Mikoyan MiG-... instead of the Mikoyan–Gurevich MiG-... form. Brandmeister^talk 21:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brandmeister, much appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. While the company is officially as Brandmeister states, the WP:COMMONAME for the current company used in reliable sources on the subject is, in fact, "Mikoyan". The runner-up would probably be "OKB MiG"... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Britannica or Encyclopedia Astronautica use MiG. The company's website itself states, that the MiG aircraft are produced by the RAC MiG, not Mikoyan: "In 2005 the RAC "MiG" commenced production of new unified family of multi-role fighters...", "The RAC «MiG» proceeds with serial production of the upgraded MiG-29 aircraft", etc. Brandmeister^talk 23:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mikoyan-Gurevich" would be very competitive as the common name, with "MiG" and "Mikoyan", so any rename should follow whatever the main article is called -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2014 (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.

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: manual merge/recategorise, then delete. – Fayenatic London 11:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Technologists manual merge to appropriate subcategories of Category:People associated with technology and Category:Engineers

Nominator's rationale: This intermediary category doesn't help much. The parent is a better place, and all of the contents can be better categorized into the specific type of technology/engineering these people work on, vs the vague "technologists". Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Technologist is a disambiguation page. We could keep the technologists category, but as a disambiguating category instead ala Category:Georgia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose "people associated with technology" can refer to any luddite, as well as technology evangelists, and assembly line workers, and you, since you're using a computer. The Unabomber is a person associated with technology, since he bombed technology. The Boy Scouts are people associated with technology since they learn to make fire, a basic technology. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should correct the intent - it was not to keep them in Category:People associated with technology, it was to put them in the proper and much more focused sub-categories of that one, or within Category:Engineers. As noted, Technologist is a dab page, and could refer to a wide range of engineering and technology roles, but as a category it's far too vague to assign to someone as a job - much better to put them in a more specific category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My response is a critique of the name "Category:People associated with technology", and it's rather poor description of what it is supposed to do. Perhaps "Technologist" should be the name of the head category instead of "People associated with technology". -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@70.50.151.11:, the problem with Category:Technologists is it is poor as a content category and poor as a container; poor as content because these people actually have more specific job descriptions that fit them better; poor as a container because it's overly specific. The "People associated with X" is broadly used in the category tree, so I don't know why this particular one is that bad - as it brings together people who build various technologies with those who do management of same, or design, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Distribute most of contents to more specific categories. You will probably be left with a few that are concerned with technology generally, for example those promoting its dissemination. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Start killing the way too over broad "people associated with x" categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2014 (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.

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) 00:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Deaths in worship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: In discussing with the creator of this category, it seems to be intended to cover people who died while praying. I don't think we have a category tree for "Deaths by thing the people were doing before they died", so I think we should delete. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is potentially an interesting category system...imagine deaths in battle, deaths in office, deaths at work, deaths while driving, etc. etc. Right now, the categorized articles are for individuals in early Islam who were slain during prayer. Yes, probably hagiography at work but I'm sure there are plenty of Christian saints who died during prayer, too. So, while I think it's a valid category, I don't know if there is the support right now to build this branch off of Category:Deaths. There is a structure of "Deaths by X" that already exists that is probably underpopulated right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have Category:Deaths_by_cause, which is much more reasonable. What is notable is usually how someone died, not necessarily what they were doing just before they died - and you also run into the problem of proximity - if someone was praying, then heard a knock at the door, drew their sword, and were killed in a fight, does that mean they were killed while praying? Please let's not start a whole new branch of the deaths tree, which would impact hundreds of thousands of articles...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it did exist, I don't think it would have that big of an impact as it is usually not notable what someone was doing when death struck. I can only think of a couple of examples where I'm aware of the situation of someone's death (aside from being at the hospital) and most of those individuals had unusual deaths. There is a list for that subject and I think that this topic would be more suitable for a list or article than a category. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notable people are usually notable for what they did during their life, not for how they died. We already have too many categories based on how a person died. DexDor (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being in prayer at the time of one's death is both too common and too little defining. We have an overabundance of death cats, we don't need this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2014 (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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Video games based on Cartoon Network Studios series and characters to Category:Cartoon Network video games

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Redundant category. Everything in this category, including all the subcategories, is already included in Category:Cartoon Network video games. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support In general, I vote for simple category names, too, rather than ones consisting of 10 words. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as redundant —PC-XT+ 09:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to shorter name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2014 (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.

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 (article was deleted and category has remained empty). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:RMITV SYN co-productions to Category:RMITV productions and Category:SYN productions

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one article, and little chance of expansion. That lone article The Inquiry (television program) has itself been PRODded. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 25 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tamil civilization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be an attempt at a stub article, in categ space. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — We already have Category:Tamil history and Sangam period, and there are no articles other than the portal in this category —PC-XT+ 10:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an article in category space.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2014 (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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:PRC objects to Category:Polar-ring galaxies

Nominator's rationale: Apparent duplicate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the scope is not duplicative. PRC is a specific catalogue of polar-ring galaxies, there are more polar-ring galaxies in the universe than there are entries in the catalogue. However, whether we wish to categorize galaxy articles by this catalogue or not is another matter. If we keep this categorization, it will need to be renamed, it's going to collect incorrect things since the People's Republic of China (PRC) has many objects. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• merge per nom. We don't need this specific catalogue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge When I first saw this category, I thought it was related to things in the People's Republic of China.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2014 (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.

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. JohnCD (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Server Side Includes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category contains only the userpage of User:Poobalu, who created the category. Categories should not be used to present user pages as if they were Encyclopedic content.
This editor has made no other contributions outside of their own userpage, and the userpage appears to be designed as some sort of homepage. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Poobalu. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – it has no legitimate contents. Oculi (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as basically unused —PC-XT+ 09:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pichpich (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2014 (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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters by species to Category:Fictional characters by nature
• Propose renaming Category:Lists of fictional characters by species to Category:Lists of fictional characters by nature

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Fictional characters by species was created at CFD 2013 Nov 14, inviting suggestions for a better name. Category:Fictional characters by nature had been emptied and deleted without discussion in October 2008 and I cannot trace the rationale for that. CFD 2008 Sept 23 had just endorsed it as being better than "by species". – Fayenatic London 10:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think nature would be more correct, but at the same time, many people seem to use species as a synonym, or even be confused by nature. I'm leaning towards rename, but am not sure, yet... —PC-XT+ 11:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose species is better than "nature" - species here used in the exo-biologist sense - it's close enough anyway.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The problem I have with this proposal is that "nature" is inexact and vague...I'm not sure exactly what the subcategories would be. Species is more specific and it's easier for editors to categorize by names that are clearly defined (even though they are fictional species). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Commnet Category:Fictional characters by taxonomy ? or Category:Fictional characters by taxonomic grouping ? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say rename to one of those, but they seem complicated, though not as confusing as nature... I'll think about it. —PC-XT+ 09:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• REname Category:Fictional characters by type. This is covering angels, demons, dwarves, and animals. It will probably be necessary to define it better in a headnote as excluding human beings. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Type reminds me of D&D's 'creature type' method of categorization.

• Rename Category:Fictional characters by classification or life forms. Upmerge Category:Fictional life forms. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters by race or species. --Tranquility of Soul (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: "Nature" is really vague. Is it how they act? What they do? Tough to tell. I like some of the other suggestions here, but the name should probably be kept fairly simple, so let's just leave it at "Species". Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 13:23, 4 March 2014 (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.

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 for now to Category:Gate Petroleum. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gate Petroleum properties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I have not found any other real-estate-by-owner categories. It seems to me to be a very bad way to categorise properties, because real estate companies regularly buy and sell their properties, so the premises are rarely defined by a particular owner. For example, Gate owned a little over half of Blount Island, but their ownership does not appear to be WP:DEFINING for the island.
If kept, this needs some parent categories ... if anyone can figure out what they might be. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now, potentially rename to Gate Petroleum. There are lots of things categorized by the real estate company that owned them - for example, various shopping malls and buildings - see Category:Real estate and property developers and associated subcategories, like this one Category:Hines Interests Limited Partnership.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Gate Petroleum which will enable to be cover otehr things too. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2014 (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.

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) 00:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Syrian Social Nationalist Party members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We don't usually categorise people by membership of a particular group, and such categories have been repeatedly deleted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Party membership is rarely defining, except for political leaders. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2014 (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.

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) 02:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Media about North Korea to [[:Category:]]

Nominator's rationale: I can find no other Category:Media about Foo country. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete The DPRK is a special and unique case; it is one of the few nations on Earth that has spawned an industry of foreign media dedicated to reporting on it. BlueSalix (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whereas nobody ever dedicates themselves to reporting about the United States, Russia, Syria, or anywhere else. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited my opinion to Delete. On further reflection on BrownHairedGirl's points, I've changed my mind. BlueSalix (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• not sure We do have Category:Mass media by topic into which this fits, but its also true that we don't have X about Foo country, and there is plenty of media "about" various countries, or parts of countries. On the fence for now.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After looking at the contents, we have a few blogs. Do we really want to start categorizing blogs by the country they focus on? Just think of the growth in the number of categories. And then there is the question, are blogs really media? Then we have the article on bias in reporting leaving me unconvinced of the need for this category. Maybe at some point we can create Category:North Korean media. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2014 (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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of Shoy to Category:Alternative Wikipedia accounts

Nominator's rationale: There is a long precedent for deleting categories specific to any one editor, and Category:Alternative Wikipedia accounts has no other single-editor subcats. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, legitimate account, AFAIK only sockpuppet categories of individual users are kept separate. Brandmeister^talk 19:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is one of mine. I went through all of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets because there was a fair amount of miscategorized subcategories. There were two, I think, odd categories like this one that I didn't know where to file because it was filed in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets but they aren't identified as sock puppet accounts. Wherever you think it should go is fine with me but there are categories specific to any one editor, there are over 10,000 of them, when an editor has either identified or suspected sock puppets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 25 February 2014 (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.

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. Note that the category that was created during the discussion, Category:Hispanic and Latino American speculative fiction writers, has been nominated for discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Latino speculative fiction writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Single article category. There is no Category:Latino writers, and the creator's edit summary describes this as category "by color". Per WP:CATGRS, Wikipedia does not categorise people by their skin color. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • :: So are you arguing that the entire Speculative fiction by writers of color page should be deleted? Or that Latino authors should not be included in a page on "Writers of Color"? Darrah (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at that page, it is a bit problematic, or it should at least be trimmed somewhat, not sure why Japanese writing is mixed in with that of African-Americans.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But others do see the value in that. Science fiction was, for so long, completely populated by Western white (mostly male) authors, that examples of diverse writers from different backgrounds are of interest to many people, including academic courses taught at various Universities, and other kinds of reading lists. The primary organization for speculative fiction writing by people of color, the Carl Brandon Society, focuses mostly on writers from the U.S., including Asian-American and Japanese-American writers. But their lists and recommendations often include writers from the heritage countries as well. Various library lists will include both Japanese-American writers along with Japanese writers. Not everyone wants to slice things up in the same way, and most readers of this page will be only interested in a subset of the elements, but exactly which slice they'll be interested in will vary substantially. Darrah (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. It's a rather small slice, and I don't see the value of mixing latino + speculative fiction in this way.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • :: Given that there are several anthologies of Latino Speculative Fiction, it is apparent that many other people DO see value in mixing these topics in this way. Darrah (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't do race-based categories, and tend to confine ethnicities to within a particular country; thus Category:Hispanic and Latino American, but not Category:Latino. Additionally, we don't always do ethnic slices, especially if the parent category cannot be fully diffused, this violates the last-rung rule, which is more or less the case here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. I created "Category:Hispanic and Latino American speculative fiction writers" instead, and populated that with a few more obvious authors. I think the original category page can then be deleted. Darrah (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We avoid trans-national categorization of people in almost all cases. Writers aresplit first and foremost by nationality. This obsession with "color" reflects what boils down to an overly Amero-centric view of the world.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This category is now empty. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 3 March 2014 (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.

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) 00:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Science Fiction categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Category-Class science fiction articles. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, but first ensure they are all tagged for wikiproject science fiction.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2014 (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.

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/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cold War merchant ships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose upmerging Category:Cold War merchant ships of Germany to Category:Merchant ships of Germany
• Propose upmerging Category:Cold War merchant ships of Poland to Category:Merchant ships of Poland
• Propose upmerging Category:Cold War merchant ships of the United Kingdom to Category:Merchant ships of the United Kingdom
• Propose upmerging Category:Cold War merchant ships of the United States to Category:Merchant ships of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Categorizing merchant ships by a military era is a bit odd. Presumably other editors think so to and haven't been putting many articles into these categories (unless there really are just two merchant ships designed, built, or operated by Germany from 1945 to 1990 that we have an article about). For info: Similar categories for passenger ships were recently deleted - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_9#Category:Cold_War_passenger_ships. DexDor (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to equivalent mercahnt ship categories. I am not convinced by Cold War as a period even in military history. It is certainly NOT an appropriate one for non-military matters. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2014 (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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Workplace violence to Category:Workplace shootings

Nominator's rationale: This unparented category contains only shootings. It should either be renamed to better describe its scope (similar to Category:School shootings) or deleted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' as too vague and not meaningful. The vast majority of shootings take place in someone's workplace. Every school shooting takes place in the teachers' workplace, the 9/11 attacks destroyed the workplace of a few thousand people and so on. The scope of the category is in fact much wider than this since it includes any sort of violence taking place in somebody's workplace. This is useless. Pichpich (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I added 3 sub-categories, each of which is about violence (not shootings) taking place in the workplace of the victims. Hmains (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The addition of the bank robbery categories has made me convinced that this is trying to merge unlike things. Workplace violence is a term usually reserved for violence perpetrated by employees at their place of employment. Anyway, bank robberies are not all violent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read the category tree, you will find that Category:Robberies is a child of Category:Robbery which is a child of Category:Violent crime, as it should be. Hmains (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- not all workplace violence involves guns. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2014 (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.

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) 00:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:National Games of Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This is a single-article category containing only the head article National Games of Nepal. That article doesn't link to anything which could be added to the category and whatlinkshere also shows nothing relevant. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:54, 25 February 2014 (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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Indian Ayurvedic homes to Category:Ayurveda

Nominator's rationale: Unparented category which appears to have been created solely for its one article Poomulli. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 25 February 2014 (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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:NIDA members to Category:Azerbaijani democracy activists‎

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT; only one article, and little sign of a chnace of expansion. The head article Nida Civic Movement links to only one article on a member: Rashad Hasanov, which is also the only article in this category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:45, 25 February 2014 (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.

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, but with the changes to the category at least it can now be re-assessed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Luso-Indian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Is this potentially the basis of a viable category?
It was created as an unparented category containing only Kristi language, but we do have an article Luso-Indian.
If kept, I am not sure how this category should be parented or what it should contain. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• on the fence I parented this, and it could remain per smallcat. Not sure if we have many other contents, but we do have a subcategory already for Indian people of Portuguese descent which is likely a valid child.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The one article is adequately categorised as Indian and a Portuguese Creole language. Hence no need to merge anywhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Merge to Category:Portuguese diaspora in India. Solar-Wind (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that will do, because they are not a diaspora in the usualy sense, but (like Anglo-Indians) a hybrid community, the result of liasons between (mostly) Portuguese men and Indian women. I suspect that in practice many are in fact integrated into tfhe Anglo-Indian community. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We have multiple articles now. This is a cultural phenomenon, where some of the involved people have no actual Portugese ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2014 (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.

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. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Disorders causing seizures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I found this category in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories, and set about categorising it. However, I can't see any way of fitting it into existing category trees, which seem to be in a bit of a tangle around these topics.
Seizure redirects to epileptic seizure, which hatnote pointing to non-epileptic seizure. But non-epileptic seizure is in Category:Seizure types, which is a subcat of Category:Epilepsy. That makes no sense.
Several of the pages in this category appear to be in no other category, so if this category is deleted, it should only be after a manual recategorisation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject notifications: Neuroscience, Medicine, Neorology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

• Keep - agree it is a mess, but first look suggests this is not the way to clean it up. Seizures can often occur outside of epilepsy. Better would be epilepsy to be a subcat of seizures. I can understand why Category:Seizure types is a subcat of epilepsy as this is the place where most seizures are classified and analysed. This should be renamed "epileptic seizure types" I suspect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cas liber —PC-XT+ 11:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm leaning toward deletion because I don't think there are other categories that are for disorders that are defined by symptoms (like Disorders causing depression, Disorders causing heart attacks, Disorders causing hair loss, Disorders causing impotency, etc.) and I'm not sure WP should start down this road to a new category tree. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cas Liber, who I think explains it very well. I'd be inclined to rename it, however, to "Category:Seizure disorders". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the renaming suggestion. "Seizure disorders" is more concise. —PC-XT+ 09:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC) 09:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure what to do with this category. It has no parents, but short of putting it in Category:Diseases I can't think of a reasonable sub-category to put it in. With respect to the suggestion of renaming to "Seizure disorders", this is not the same thing. e.g. Epilepsy is a seizure disorder, whereas SLE is not. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points. I see what you are saying about the rename: a disorder can lead to seizures, without having seizures as an essential feature. What that makes me think is that we really ought to have Category:Seizure disorders, whereas the more nebulous category discussed here may be leading to problems because it is nebulous. Given the expectation that categorization is to be based upon defining, rather than incidental, characteristics, I'm inclined to revise my !vote to Move to Category:Seizure disorders, and remove those pages from the category that are only incidental members. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep It now has a proper parent Category:Diseases and disorders which makes sense. It is a descriptive category of health events having a common symptom: seizures. Hmains (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Also keep the current name. Causes of seizures are not all seizure disorders. A seizure disorder has seizures as its primary symptom. Many other disorders may sometimes cause seizures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.26.95 (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2014 (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.