Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< December 19 December 21 >

December 20

Category:AfD Debates withdrawn by nominator

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) 02:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:AfD Debates withdrawn by nominator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Infrequently used category, one listing in several months, not really useful. MBisanz talk 23:43, 20 December 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:Fictional seals and walruses

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 current name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fictional seals and walruses to Category:Fictional pinnipeds
Nominator's rationale: I think a more generic name would be suited for this category, in case there's ever an article on a fictional sea lion. Compare, say, Category:Fictional monotremes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:22, 20 December 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:Fictional rodent species

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 (no opposition). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional rodent species (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Seems a little too narrow in scope. I don't see it ever expanding beyond these two. Scrat can simply be categorized as a fictional squirrel. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:20, 20 December 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:St Kilda

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:St Kilda to Category:St Kilda, Scotland
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per key article (St Kilda, Scotland). St Kilda is a disambiguation page. Grutness...wha? 22:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname to match main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename is obvious given that St Kilda in Australia has more people than the Scottish island. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even the one in New Zealand (which I can see from my window) has more people than the Scottish one. The more important thing, though, is that St Kilda is a dab page, so the category name's ambiguous. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 23 December 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:Villages in Northern Estonia

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. (Merged to Category:Villages in Estonia, just to be sure.) Category was tagged for 5 days+. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Villages in Northern Estonais (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - All the places in this category are in the category Villages in Estonia. This means that the category has no purpose whatsoever.
    talk
    )
Nominator's Rationale: Delete
talk
) 22:20, 20 December 2008.
  • Upmerge to "Villages in Estonia" in case they are not all there yet. This would be a legitiamte subcategory if "Northern Estonia" were a defined area, which (I think) it is not. If it were the category contents should be removed from the Estonia category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, "Northern Estonia" isn't defined. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment category is not tagged Hmains (talk) 17:55, 21 December 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:Jewish American musicians

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. Kbdank71 14:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish American musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete BLP issues, many unsourced, religious preferences. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and this one should be no exception! IZAK (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • no consensus should not exactly count as "counter-examples." And from that count, I can only see FIVE "keeps". Jewish inventors was not a proper Cfd. It was asking whether to re-instate the category because the list no longer existed. Bulldog 23:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Alan, there has been a continual struggle to remind editors -- in many cases, it would be more accurate to say "explain for the first time" -- that being Jewish is more than practicing a particular religion. So, please... It really hurts the cause to reduce this to religion when it's really about religion, ethnicity & culture -- because purely religious categories have received considerably less support among editors than have those for ethnicity. Happy Hannukah to you, too! Cgingold (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter if you define being Jewish is an ethnicity or religion (or race or sexual preference). I do not propose that being Jewish is defining because it is a religion versus being an ethnic group; I advocate that it is defining however one wants to define the nature of its grouping. If replacing the word "religion" with "ethnicity" improves the argument (or your reading of it), feel free to interpret it as you prefer. Alansohn (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe we're on the same page here, Alan. My only concern was that your exclusive use of the word "religion" would reinforce the garbled understanding of some editors on this point. Believe me, having been through more than a few CFDs for Jewish categories (and read through many others), this is a very real problem that has resulted in the deletion of a lot of Jewish categories that were mistakenly lumped in with cats for other religions. Cgingold (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - This being a major subcategory of Category:Jewish musicians, deletion/upmerging into that category would be extremely detrimental to navigation, as dumping more than 500 articles there would swamp the much smaller number of articles for other nationalities, making it very difficult to locate the much smaller number of non-Americans. I have never understood the supposed logic for doing something so manifestly harmful to the category structure. Cgingold (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep in order to oppose the censorship of categories and articles dealing with Jews, Judaism, and Israel here on Wikipedia; if nothing else this category should not be deleted but merged in to Category:American Jews AND Category:Jewish musicians in order to avoid a massive loss of valid data. --Wassermann (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - i notice we always have the same people on these Jewish AfDs. Otto, me, and Izaak frequently saying delete. Alansohn and Cgingold often voting "keep" (unless it's somehow a negative characterization of Jews), and once in a while a couple of ultra-nationalists come in like Wassermann. This makes it so these C/AfDs always end up being a "no consensus." I recommend to the closer to re-open this CfD and only count !votes placed by people who did not participate in this CFD - that way we actually get a general consensus and no one of the same people over an over. Bulldog 23:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Otto. I agree that "Jewish PROFESSION" are probably acceptable, but "Jewish American PROFESSION" are probably overcategorization in most cases. They can be upmerged to the Jewish musicians category if desired, though I would guess most of them are better defined as "American musicians" than "Jewish musicians". Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the U.S. entertainment industry (and other forms of fame), being "Jewish" is an important part of one's identity. This is true regardless of whether one is Jewish by blood, conversion, or religion actually practiced. It is very hard to avoid the label of Jewish if it is somehow associated with a person. For example, Dara Torres (famous in another field) is known as "Jewish" on the basis of a conversion she received while marrying a former husband. Linda Chavez has undergone a Reform Jewish conversion, but is a practicing Catholic. I admit adding this category to two persons recently (Carnie Wilson and Wendy Wilson) on the basis that their parents are Jewish, even though they have not been widely known as Jewish themselves. We may require a more in-depth policy that inclusion in a category must be sourced. But this does not mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and eliminating the entire category. Xyz7890 (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we already require sourcing; consequently, I've commented out the Jewish categories for the Wilson sisters. The problem is that their Jewish ethnicity is apparently derived from their mother -- but her article has no sourcing whatsoever. I encourage you to find sourcing and add it to the article(s). Cgingold (talk) 23:40, 30 December 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:Black Jews

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, without prejudice to a renomination to rename it. Kbdank71 15:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Black Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete BLP issues, many unsourced, list of religious preferences. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and this one should be no exception! IZAK (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 23 December 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:Villages of Bangladesh

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) 09:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
talk | history | links | watch | logs
)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Declined speedy. Original deletion rationale was, "articles are categorised as cities, towns and villages". SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:54, 20 December 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:English footballers who played in Ireland (before 1923)

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) 09:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:English footballers who played in Ireland (before 1923) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Declined speedy nomination. Speedy deletion rationale was, "Population of one! Useless category, should qualify for speedy." SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wanted to do speedy delete, but SchuminWeb changed it, the category has only one member, and would be very hard to populate. Other categories of this kind have already been delete. This is just another example of over categorization. Govvy (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per preecedent of deleted Category:Scottish footballers who have played in England. Nationalities within UK are largely a matter of perception, i.e. POV. This also applies to pre-Free State Ireland. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent, case of over-categorization. Jogurney (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't seem well populated, and not very useful. Hogvillian (talk) 01:00, 25 December 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:English footballers who have played in Northern Ireland

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) 09:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:English footballers who have played in Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Declined speedy nominee. Relevant part of speedy deletion rationale was, "Too hard to populate. Category:Scottish footballers who have played in England already deleted[.]" SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wanted to do speedy delete, but SchuminWeb changed it, the category has only one member, and would be very hard to populate. Other categories of this kind have already been delete. This is just another example of over categorization. Govvy (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per preecedent of deleted Category:Scottish footballers who have played in England. Natioanlities within UK are largely a matter of perception, i.e. POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent, case of over-categorization. Jogurney (talk) 04:30, 23 December 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:Ambiguous place names

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. Kbdank71 17:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ambiguous place names to Category:Place name disambiguation pages
Nominator's rationale: The old consensus has migrated over the past two years to Yet Another Category Naming Scheme for disambiguation pages. With the recent first (no consensus) and second (successful) change for human names, the form of most recent disambiguation categories now seem to start or end with "disambiguation pages", matching Category:Disambiguation pages, now a subcategory of Category:Disambiguation. This is primarily propagated by {{geodis}}, where the current documentation is already incorrect. -- William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment page needs to be tagged Hmains (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename -- This is horrible category, due to its size, but we do need to have his as we so "hndis". Manual addition should be discouraged: it should be populated on by the use of a template. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. While I'm more or less indifferent to whether this particular category is named one way or the other, if this is being posed as some sort of standardization, then it should be framed as a mass renaming of all the subcategories of Category:Disambiguation pages other than Category:Set indices. There is little point to discussing renaming a single category on the basis of consistency when the majority of the other similar categories are inconsistent. older ≠ wiser 14:52, 22 December 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:Contributors to Bloggingheads.tv

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. Kbdank71 17:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Contributors to Bloggingheads.tv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • I know that categories like this seem harmless. But we need to restrict them for a simple reason: most people like those in this category are contributors to *numerous* publications and media outlets. Consequently, they could easily accumulate a dozen or more categories just for things they've contributed to. That is what's referred to as "category clutter". Hope that helps. Cgingold (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I totally respect your reasoning, but a dozen or so categories does not seem like that much clutter to me personally since they are at the bottom of the page and all. The same reasoning could be applied to just about any set of categories (living people, media associations, etc.) If a person is famous enough, they will invariably have lots of categories that they could belong to. I understand your reasoning, but I just respectfully disagree. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm with Cards -- I don't understand how it hurts to keep it, and if a few people find it useful, and someone enjoyed creating it, that's seems sufficient to justify its (continued) existence. I use Wikipedia all the time, and I never feel like "clutter" from other pages is a problem. I don't understand the urge to delete something that lives on a separate page. bjkeefe (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add that I just realized that categories (just their names) do appear on a given page -- all the way at the bottom. So, I'll grant that the concept of "category clutter" is not completely devoid of meaning, but since this is the first time I've ever really paid attention to this aspect of a page, I really fail to see how a few more words hurts. I mean, half the time I'm reading a Wikipedia page, it's for the references and external links, so it's not like I don't spend time scrolled down near the bottom. That I've never noticed the categories box as anything more than, say, tags on blog posts -- handy to have if you're looking for this sort of connection, easy enough to ignore if not -- suggests that "category clutter" is not a real problem. bjkeefe (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thought: (apologies for multiple edits) It seems to me that the more tags you can associate with something, the better. Tags and Wikipedia categories are probably different in some ways, but they also have a lot in common, and probably the most important way they compare is this: the hard part is getting humans to say that two things are connected in some way that makes sense to humans. The more connections identified by different people, the better for anyone else who comes along later, looking for things by connection. If it turns out that a given Wikipedia page belongs to "too many" categories, what should happen is a software mod that allows a visitor to that page to collapse or expand the list of categories. (Note that I have a hard time imagining what "too many" is, especially since the list is at that bottom of the page, but I'll grant it for the sake of argument.) bjkeefe (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you seem to be very interested in this issue, you might want to read through some of the long and lively discussions that have taken place over the years debating these very questions (category clutter, categories vs. tags, etc). IIRC, they're in the archives of the talk pages for
    WP:Categories and WikiProject Categories. Cgingold (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep The page is extremely useful, and isn't hurting anybody. The discrete category tag that appears on participants' pages is also doing no harm, while contributing real value. Instead of punishing people who making significant contributions to Wikipedia, we should be thanking them. The category page is a useful aid to readers and in the real world provides far more value than whatever harm it causes in the abstract by "cluttering" the list of categories at the bottom of the page. My larger concern, though, is that we wil discourage contributors who have devoted signifcant time to improving the Wikipedia resource if we attempt to destroy their work and the value they contribute to the site. -asx- (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Bloggingheads project is unique and has (IMHO) high value. The contributors form a loose-knit community of sorts, with "diavlogging" serving both as a direct source of useful content and a rich source of cross-communication. I don't think the open question here should be whether this category of list ought to exist, but whether a specific instance merits inclusion. I think it's easy to believe that this list does so. ---MaxFlux (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Top shelf journalists, authors, policy makers and academics debate here. It's a great resource. Eddie Tejeda (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a useful category to have. Hogvillian (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All of the "keep" comments are offering great reasons to have a list for this, but they are not offering any valid reasons for keeping the information as a category. Nominator is correct that this is far from defining for those included. Perhaps we should listify this and delete since both sides have valid points: it is not defining, but the information seems to be valued. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find it more helpful to be categorized at the bottom of relevant people's pages, but whatever everyone else decides is fine with me. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just as an inquiry of personal interest; What would be some good reasons for having a category as opposed to a list? I have been thinking about several categories that I am familiar with and I can't think of good reasons why they might be better as categories instead of lists. I am sure there must be some criteria where a category is a good idea, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. (note: these may be codified in a guide somewhere listing the criteria for having a category, and if so feel free to point me to that) This doesn't have to do with this specific category that is being discussed; More of just a personal interest on my part. Thanks. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the name of the category should be changed to "Bloggingheads.tv," and the category should include links to all pages pertaining to the enterprise. If you look at the pages for David Gregory, Brit Hume, Wolf Blizter, et al., they all have category links for, e.g., NBC News, Fox News, CNN, etc. Since the category under discussion does much the same thing -- organizes all contributors to the Bloggingheads enterprise -- it should simply be renamed from "Contributors to Bloggingheads.tv," to "Bloggingheads.tv." Just an idea; not entirely sure if this is a good suggestion. Happy to hear what others think. I would finally note that BHTV is a collaborative enterprise. Participants "diavlog" with one another within the community of contributors. Therefore having a list of the contributors helps identify the scope of that community and helps to find who appeared with whom. -asx- (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be acceptable to me. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is exactly on point.---MaxFlux (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I really don't see how the above proposal changes anything. It's still proposing to categorize people by a non-defining participation in a blog site, just under a different name. Think of the category clutter that would quickly accumulate if every pundit or commentator out there could be categorized according to what media outlet or blog site s/he has participated in. This was nipped in the bud quite early in WP history at
    WP:ILIKEIT arguments that are not good reasons for keeping. They may, however, be fine reasons to listifying the material. Also, the contention that "the more tags you can associate with something, the better" is quite contrary to the entire purpose of having standards to determine what categories to keep and which to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The ones mentioned about other media outlets (CNN, NBC News, etc.) could be seen as the same. They list participants as well. Loads of TV shows list the characters or actors that have participated in the show in a category. It isn't just regular tv either; For instance this category lists characters from their online series "Battlestar Galactica: The Face of the Enemy". (this is just one example, there are plenty) I guess I just don't understand how getting rid of all these would serve a purpose. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should say, I can see your point about not listing participants of every blog or website out there, but for online television series, (which this is) or over the air/cable television there is already a large precedent of listing these types of participants in category form. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is not. Characters categories and participant/actors categories are completely different issues. Characters categories have been deemed appropriate, but never actors or participants categories. The category you linked to is a character category. The actor/participant category for the exact same series you mentioned was deleted here. Actor/participants categories have almost never been kept when subject to discussion. There is precedent for listing such participants in list form at the main article or in a separate article, but not category form. There is extremely strong precedent for deleting categories of actors/participants when classed by television show or media outlet: see here and here. This is no different. This fundamental misunderstanding seems to be at the heart of the issue here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I think you are mistaken; sorry. There are tons and tons of categories for actors This is in addition to the previously mentioned (3 times now I think) people that are listed in the news categories like CNN, Fox News, etc. These are all actual people, not characters. (If you want to go even wider, there are tons and tons of categories having to do with actors) If I am not making myself clear enough or there is a misunderstanding of the questions we are asking, I apologize, but I assure you I am not misunderstanding (fundamentally or otherwise) what you are saying; It just seems that if you are going to allow categorization of people (not characters; Actual actors and people!) on some categories, then I don't understand why it can't be applied to other categories. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know the difference between a category and a list? These are categories, but they contain lists. They are not categories dedicated to actors of a particular series. It is not Category:Grey's Anatomy case members, for example. It is List of Grey's Anatomy cast members, which is in Category:Lists of actors by drama television series. They are categories of lists. That's exactly what I'm advocating here—the creation of a list of participants (as opposed to a category). The fact that this list will, of course, go in a category is irrelevant to the point in question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, yes of course I understand the difference; Do you? Here are examples of subcategories that I am talking about (since the link to general categories is obviously too confusing): Category of female porn stars, Category of Shakespearean actors, Category of actor politicians, American film actors, etc, etc, etc. (there are hundreds of these things) There is something I do not understand (not category classification, haha), and it is what the distinction is for this "category clutter" argument, because I don't think listing people who are on CNN or Fox News or CNBC (which is already done), listing people who are actors in different categories (which is already done), or listing actors from individual series (which is apparently what you are arguing against) would add that significantly to an article. (and, like I said, if it did, then remove them from the article, not the category all together, which seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're getting it because you're comparing "apples to oranges", and you keep changing the categories you are referencing when I point out that they are not comparable. This is now the third set you have cited, and they are not comparable either. This category is a "performer by performance" category—similar to Category:Seinfeld actors or Category:Huffington Post bloggers—NOT to Category:American film actors. You're comparing something that is very broad to something that is very narrow and specific. Read up on the issue (ample links have already been provided to you) and maybe you'll start to get it, because I'm obviously not getting through to you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I keep giving more and more examples to try and get you to understand. They are not seperate sets of examples, as the ones I just gave were all listed in the subsection of the previous link I provided. (Obviously you didn't see them, which is why I linked to them again) As far as the broad/narrow definition; That is precisely what I was describing in the previous section. When I listed off the categories and asked about them. (I wasn't being that unintelligible was I?) So, you contend that there is a certain magic line of how broad a category can be; That is fine, but it leads to 2 questions: 1) how do you determine where that line is, and 2) why are deletions proposed of such categories instead of proposals to merge them into a "broader" category? (which would necessarily follow from that line of reasoning) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The line is that we don't categorize by movie, TV series, movie series, media outlet, specific performance, specific website, etc. We do categorize by nationality and by general performance (e.g., TV actors, bloggers, porn stars, etc.) (2) Merging them to a more general category is a judgment call and based on whether it is perceived by the nominator that participation in the general forum format is defining for those involved. Here, I personally don't think it's defining for most, at least judging by the articles I have examined (which admittedly is not all of them). But I'm not the nominator in this case, either. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) But you DO categorize by media outlet, websites, etc. (see Category:CNN, Category:Youtube, etc, etc.), (2) Yes, I wasn't talking about specifics here, but you were the one who had mentioned that going case by case was not optimal (You said "It always helps to have a general approach rather than a random maybe yes here maybe no here approach..."- and so on, below), so I was attempting to see how that fit in here. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ones you are now citing aren't articles that are intended to hold articles about people. In general, articles about people should not be added to these categories (even though they are by some users). The "CNN people" category was deleted: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_6#Category:CNN_people. You have to look at the results from past discussions of categories that have come to discussion. That's why I provided the link to those for you to look at. Anyone can find exceptions to the rule because CfDs are not automatic and it's difficult to prevent users from adding people to categories when doing so has been decided against—what's important is to look at the consensus that has come before for those categories that have been discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's way more than a few; there are hundreds of them. When there are so many, it just appears to be the rule. Whatever, I really don't care enough about this to keep arguing and have better things to do. Go ahead and listify it or whatever it is you are going to do anyway. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, apart from their existence or not (which is fairly irrelevant I suppose) I understand that you may want to delete these kinds of categories, but I guess it is still unclear as to the reasoning for that. I personally do not view the "category clutter" to be an issue unless it really got out of hand. (the dozen or so example given seems fairly moderate to me) If this is the only reason that there is for deleting these types of category en masse, then I am even further perplexed, as that would seem to be a reason for a case-by-case approach and not a mass deletion approach. (in other words, even given that the argument that I don't believe is true is actually true, then that would still not be a reason for such an action; but perhaps some of the other reasons have so far gone unstated) I am really not trying to argue here viciously or anything if that is how it seems. (as I said, listifying would be fine with me if that was what others agreed on) I am just attempting to understand the reasoning. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It always helps to have a general approach rather than a random maybe yes here maybe no here approach. When it's like that, line drawing becomes a problem which indeed could quickly lead to things getting out of hand. The only reason it hasn't is because lines have been drawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree totally, but as the examples I gave above indicate, it is not uniformly being applied at the moment. (or, at least, it does not appear to be) In addition, as I said, I do not understand how allowing these types of categories would be harmful. As I said, I do not think category clutter is a problem in the way that was described initially, and even if it is, then this is not the way to fix it. That is like saying an article is too large, so lets make some mass deletion of content to get it down some; It just wouldn't be a good way to fix things. (splitting off a new article is, of course, much better) So, in summary, 1) if the policy were currently being applied uniformly I would have less of a gripe, but 2) I still do not understand how these types of categories would be harmful. And lest I be misunderstood, I will say yet again, that this is in no way a huge issue, and if listifying this specific category is what is desired by people, then I have absolutely no problem with that. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) It is being applied consistently, you just don't seem to recognise that despite my efforts to point you in the direction of how you can find out that it is being done so. (2) See
WP:ILIKEIT, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
(1) Clarity is key; I apologize if it is upsetting that your efforts at clarification were confusing to me. It took you till now to say that broadness of a category is one of the determining factors. (might have been useful to say that at the start, haha) (2) See WP:Arbitrary Quality (which you seem to have just promoted), WP:All or Nothing, etc. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) There's nothing arbitrary about keeping general performer by performance categories but deleting ones for specific movies, programs, and websites. I thought you might have actually been looking at the links I provided, where the "specific" nature of the categories deleted were what I considered obvious. I may like to be condescending, but sometimes I think providing a link for a user to examine is less so than actually spelling things out in detail. (2) And my arguments are a simple appeal to respect the consensus that has developed over hundreds of CfDs before, not an "all or nothing" argument. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1)I never said it was arbitrary, I just said it was interesting that you wait until well into the discussion to bring it up, and then jump on me for not knowing that it was common knowledge. (2) I believe saying "It always helps to have a general approach rather than a random maybe yes here maybe no here approach. When it's like that, line drawing becomes a problem which indeed could quickly lead to things getting out of hand. The only reason it hasn't is because lines have been drawn." is pretty well the definition of an "all or nothing" argument, sorry. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) That's why I provided the links, which you must not have examined too carefully. (2) Not when it's based on well over 100 precedents, which is my original point. You were searching for a rationale, and I provided a possible one. Please don't try to turn that into the foundation of my argument. (And in any case, an all or nothing argument would be preferred over an
WP:ILIKEIT one pretty much any day.) At the end of the day, I'm not terribly interested in covering the same ground I already have multiple times, so perhaps you could just re-read my responses as I think I've amply covered the issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I read through all of the links, thanks. Its obvious you are willing to argue different conflicting things at the same time to justify your point, and I really don't care enough about this issue to pursue it any further. I've voiced my concerns, and others have stated their points of view, so go ahead and listify it or delete it or whatever it is that you are going to do with it. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol; there's nothing I've said above that is self-contradictory. You may have gotten that impression since your interpretation of what I was saying varied considerably depending on how much I spelt it out for you. That may indicate a failure to communicate but it's a pretty lame reason to accuse someone of arguing "contradictory things". Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; Perhaps it was just a failure of comprehension on my part. Didn't mean to accuse you of anything that you didn't do. Apologies, mate. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or my own failure to communicate clearly. I take blame as well for the misunderstandings. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2009 (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:Lost settlements

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/rename to Category:Former settlements and Category:Former settlements in Foo. As requested, recreation of Category:Lost settlements permissible for those settlements that are truly "lost". Recreation of the subcats doesn't seem logical, since if it's "in Egypt", for example, it's not really lost. Kbdank71 17:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lost settlements to Category:Extinct settlements
  • Lost settlements in Asia
  • Lost settlements in Africa
  • Lost settlements in Egypt
  • Lost settlements in the Balkans
  • Lost settlements in Central America
  • Lost settlements in Eastern Europe
  • Lost settlements in France
  • Lost settlements in Germany
  • Lost settlements in Ireland
  • Lost settlements in Italy
  • Lost settlements in Greece
  • Lost settlements in the Netherlands
  • Lost settlements in the Pacific Ocean
  • Lost settlements in Scandinavia
  • Lost settlements in South America
  • Lost settlements in Spain
  • Lost settlements in Turkey
  • Lost settlements in the United Kingdom
  • Lost Settlements in Northamptonshire

added

  • Lost settlements in Europe
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The word "lost" may imply that the category is restricted to settlements whose location is unknown. The category family, including "Lost/Extinct settlements in 'X', is intended to include all settlements that have been abandoned or destroyed, whether or not the location is known. The word "extinct" is thought to be more descriptive and has been advocated by other editors. Folks at 137 (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename all per nom. Aramgar (talk) 16:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming as improvement, but would prefer Deserted settlements as more usual term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Deserted" is a more familiar word but is might be seen to exclude some places, eg, those whose site has been destroyed, such as Dunwich or places that have been redeveloped, or flooded, such as a number of Dutch villages. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support as a less restrictive term. However, I would like to raise the question of what is the difference between an extinct settlement and a ghost town, as in Category:Ghost towns. Is there a meaningful difference? Hmains (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been answered elsewhere. In summary, all "ghost towns" are "extinct settlements", not all "extinct settlements" are " ghost towns". Folks at 137 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but what about extinct settlements in North America and/or the United States? Omnedon (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer
    Deserted Medieval Village. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Deserted normally means "untenanted" or "without inhabitants". While this is certainly applicable in many cases, it's not applicable in all of them. The sites of some former settlements are still inhabited, but they're simply no longer settlements, or are no longer considered such. (e.g., Granville, Indiana.) The benefit of using a broader term like "extinct" is that it carries no connotation about why the settlement is no longer extant. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 00:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename, but... is "extinct" the right word. Deserted is better, and I toss in Defunct or Uninhabited. Alansohn (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming existing categories, and for using the "extinct settlements" name for new categories. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 23:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I just created the category Category:Lost settlements in Europe as part of the existing subcat pattern; and I added it to the list above for renaming and tagged it. Hmains (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support [see below] I too have some doubts about the correct alternative but accept a degree of ambiguity is perhaps unavoidable. Is Former settlements any improvement? There's further discussion which might be of interest to be found here. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Former settlements Damn, I thought the category I mooted sounded too familiar! Support a merge as per Johnbod's arguments below. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not going to oppose the rename, but I'm not sure that this will fix all of the problems. Category:Lost settlements may be valid for all of the settlements that existed but have not been found, they are truly lost. Category:Extinct settlements may be best used for settlements that no longer exist in any form. Category:Deserted settlements clearly makes sense for those that still exist but are not inhabited (ghost towns or say Chernobyl). I have no idea if these three would cover all of the cases. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Former settlements The locations of most seem perfectly well known, indeed many of the Asian category are significant tourist attractions. There seems no justification for having this extra layer. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to lost settlements, that would certainly be a narrower category that presumably would not apply to most places. Still, if interested users choose to categorize truly lost settlements as such, then it presumably could be located beneath the extinct settlements umbrella. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 14:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - see my comments below. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This to be found here raises a thought: regardless of anything else, might categories still be needed for those former settlements that are still 'lost': their location is unknown at this time or was unknown in the past even if it is currently known? Hmains (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If renamed, maybe the closer could allow recreation with an introduction that repurposes the category for that use? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't mind a sensible recreation on those lines, but it is hard to find such articles in the present lot. Most of the English main cat is articles like Medeshamstede - Anglo-Saxon Peterborough, which has been continually inhabited & just got bigger and bigger. These categories were all created in the last 2 weeks with the current definitions. Johnbod (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johonny-come lately, but could we take care of part of the dispute by changing this to "Abandoned settlements"? Ingolfson (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Whoops, didn't read it all. A merge to 'Former settlements' seems generally sensible to me. A subcategory of narrower scope would still make sense, so I guess I am sitting on the fence. Ingolfson (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2009 (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.

Change "D&D" to "Dungeons & Dragons"

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:D&D articles by importance, Category:D&D articles by quality, Category:Non-article D&D pages, Category:High-importance D&D articles, Category:Top-importance D&D articles, Category:Mid-importance D&D articles, Category:Low-importance D&D articles, Category:NA-importance D&D articles, Category:Unknown-importance D&D articles, Category:Future-Class D&D articles, Category:Needed-Class D&D articles, Category:NA-Class D&D articles, Category:A-Class D&D articles, Category:B-Class D&D articles, Category:GA-Class D&D articles, Category:FA-Class D&D articles, Category:FL-Class D&D articles, Category:C-Class D&D articles, Category:Start-Class D&D articles, Category:Template-Class D&D articles, Category:Project-Class D&D articles, Category:Unassessed D&D articles, Category:NA-Class D&D articles, Category:Category-Class D&D articles, Category:Disambig-Class D&D articles, Category:Image-Class D&D articles, Category:List-Class D&D articles, Category:Portal-Class D&D articles, Category:Redirect-Class D&D articles, and Category:Stub-Class D&D articles so that they use the name "Dungeons & Dragons" rather than "D&D."
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "D&D" is an abbreviation, and I think that the full name "Dungeons & Dragons" should be used. This would also require the renaming of some non-category pages related to the v1.0 editorial team, but I think that the change makes sense and would be worth it. There has already been some discussion regarding this at
talk) 13:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)}}[reply
]
  • Yep; they're all used for reference by the WikiProject and they categorize talk pages. -
    talk) 23:32, 20 December 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:Rivers of the San Francisco County, 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 to Category:Rivers of San Francisco County, California. The case has been made that this is part of a series. All of the rivers in the bay area are grouped by county so there is no reason to make an exception for this one case. I'll also add that at the time of closing the category had 8 articles and one redirect. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rivers of the San Francisco County, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete A category containing a single article, with little hope of growth. If kept, should be renamed to something like Category:Rivers of San Francisco. Else upmerge to Category:Rivers of the San Francisco Bay Area Stepheng3 (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This category was created because Category:Rivers of the San Francisco Bay Area had over 200 hundred entries, there are additional creeks in San Francisco's Presidio that merit articles, other san francisco bay area counties have a more comprehensive amount of their creeks covered but san francisco only had one article since it is a very small county, the the should be removed. i recently created Lobos Creek so now there are 3.Troyster87 (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2009 (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 Emperor's New Groove franchise

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) 02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Emperor's New Groove franchise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Is a film, a direct-to-video, and a derivative TV series a "franchise"? I doubt it. Too narrow. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:42, 29 December 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:Delisted S&P/TSX 60 companies

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) 02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Delisted S&P/TSX 60 companies to Category:Companies formerly listed on the S&P/TSX 60 stock index
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Delisted is not the proper term. Svgalbertian (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single one of the articles mentions the company was ever included among the TSX 60, much less discusses its removal. This is even less than for the analogous Category:Former Hang Seng Index Constituent Stocks, and neither can be compared to Category:Former components of the DJIA, where a former listing on the Dow 30 is often mentioned in the introduction— even in the first sentence. S&P/TSX 60 membership does not appear to be a defining characteristic of a company, perhaps not any more than its inclusion in any other market index. In any case, a category cannot explain why a company is removed from an index— as disparate and opposed as merger/acquisition, switching markets, or bankruptcy— making a list preferable.-choster (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Choster, and because this is trivial, non-encyclopedic informaton, and impossible to maintain. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:41, 29 December 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:Ethnic groups in the history of Romania

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; feel free to nominate for deletion to have a fuller discussion on whether it should exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Ethnic groups in the history of Romania to Category:History of ethnic groups in Romania
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I created the category and I think the choice of the name I had given is not the best. But I want someone to think about it, too, before I rename it, so that I don't have to rename it back. Dc76\talk 03:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, other countries with substantial ethnic sub-populations about which/whom enough articles have been written to warrant individual history sub-categories could have similar grouping categories. I would think that larger countries like China, Russia, India, Indonesia, etc. might already have enough articles & sub-cats to group together in this sort of category structure. Cgingold (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I just suggested, I have no problem with categories like this in principle. But I'm not so sure that this particular category is actually needed -- mainly because I don't think Category:Transylvanian Saxons belongs there at all, since it's not a category pertaining to history, but rather a category for individuals. If that category is removed, we're left with just two sub-cats, which really isn't enough to justify a grouping category. So at this point I'm leaning toward "delete". Cgingold (talk) 00:24, 21 December 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:Capital Cities of the 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: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Capital Cities of the World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete
talk) 01:52, 20 December 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:Drawn Together episodes

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magioladitis (talk • contribs)
Category:Drawn Together episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category only contains two articles, and it is unlikely that any more will populate it. TTN (talk) 01:14, 20 December 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:Supreme Commander

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) 02:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Supreme Commander (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This only contains three articles (one is up for deletion), which are linked together from the main article adequately enough to make this unnecessary. TTN (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough material for a category. However the article name needs to be Supreme Commander (Game) to distinguish from such offices as "Supreme Allied Commander, Europe", which would legitimately belong in a category with this name, as presumably would the office of President of the US. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is not about Eisenhower, MacArthur, or the NATO position. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 08:11, 21 December 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:Excel Saga characters

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 (no objections; only one article in category and it was for a real person, not a character). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Excel Saga characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category does not hold enough pages to make it worth having it be separate from the parent category. TTN (talk) 01:08, 20 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_20&oldid=1166101220"