Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 18

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.

Bencherlite^Talk 00:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:Atheists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A while ago I was told that being a theist was a non-defining and trivial characteristic. If being a theist is a non-defining and trivial characteristic how can being an atheist be any differnt save for atheist activists and thinkers who already have their own Category?. --Blackeagles (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't think this kind of "compare opposites" argument usually works. One reason being a theist is non-defining is because somewhere in the neighbourhood of 95–99% of the world's population could probably be classified as such, whereas the percentage of atheists is much smaller. This is a bad example that is liable to get me into trouble, but I see it as similar to the LGBT situation — being LGBT can be defining, but being "non-LGBT" (heterosexual?) generally isn't. In any case, there are a raft of subcategories that haven't been nominated, and it would make little sense to delete this parent category for all of them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per norm That's not the grounds on which the theist category was deleted. It was deleted on the grounds that theism was a non-defining and trivial characteristic.

If a belief is a non-defining and trivial characteristic not believing is an even more trivial characteristic. --Blackeagles (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've got to go for the night. I'll be back on Thursday. --Blackeagles (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a container category with no articles at the top level, so its deletion would be futile. If we take say
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It's already been explained that there is already a Category for people like Dawkins.Every religion causes all of it's members to be activists and thinkers to some extent. Atheism doesn't causes this save for those people that are already labled atheist activists. --Blackeagles (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Theists discussion is at
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong keep per Good Ol’factory and roundhouse0. I'm having a hard time not seeing this as a case of
  WP:POINT. Cgingold (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Being theist and being atheist are both defining enough characteristics of individuals for having cat pages Mayumashu (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep no argument made for deletion other than trying to make a pointless point. This certainly is defining for the people involved Hmains (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? and how often does being an atheist compell most atheists to do anything? --Blackeagles (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's part of the point of being an atheist. It compels them to refrain from doing certain things, like going to church, praying, accepting the authority of religious leaders, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again it's a none defining characteristic. --Blackeagles (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure such a blanket statement can always be true. Clearly, being an atheist is non-defining for some people, but just as clearly being an atheist is defining for others. Because it's defining for some, that means the category should exist, and the decision shifts to whether or not a particular person is added to the category, not to whether the category itself should exist. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been explained that there is already a Category for people for whom atheist is defining. Every religion causes all of it's members to be activists and thinkers to some extent. Atheism doesn't causes this save for those people that are already labled atheist activists. --Blackeagles (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless every other religion category is nominated and deleted. Religion is categorized to a ridiculous degree here but as long as that's the case, deleting the category for this religious viewpoint is unacceptable POV.
  talk) 02:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yet the theist category got killed off. --Blackeagles (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The theists category was deleted, but none of its hundreds of potential subcategories; see Category:People by religion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all person by religion categories to go along with this proposal. 70.55.86.167 (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep quite a defining characteristic for several of the subjects included. Dimadick (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been explained that there is already a Category for people like Dawkins.Every religion causes all of it's members to be activists and thinkers to some extent. Atheism doesn't causes this save for those people that are already labled atheist activists. --Blackeagles (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If dichotomy provided the sort of argument here that the nominator wishes to pretend, then there should be no Category:American Roman Catholics unless there are also Category:Non-American Roman Catholics, Category:Americans who are not Roman Catholics, and Category:Non-Americans who are not Roman Catholics. Plainly, this nomination is a stalking horse. —SlamDiego_←T 19:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but the category should only be used for those for whom their atheism is a notable characteristic, for example becasue they are militant campaigners agaisnt religion. "Theism" is too widespread to be useful as a category, but denomination affiliation may be a notable characteristic in some cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As sensible as that restriction seems, I fear that it will lead to unending football games in which persons will be kicked in-and-out of religious categories based upon differing claims as to whether the religious characteristic were notable for him or for her. —SlamDiego_←T 00:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTICE:
  votestacking on this question.[1] —SlamDiego_←T 23:37, 23 June 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.

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. Weird but true. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Untitled Albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Joke category created by user

chatter) 22:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment I'd like to point out that while most albums have titles, there are some which had no official title, for example Led Zeppelin's fourth album Here because I'm here (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looks like this is a valid category. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:37, 24 June 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.

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: Speedy Delete G7. Lenticel ^(talk) 23:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dead animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category that seems a bit pejorative towards animals that have died and unlikely to be a serious categorization; seems to have been created as a joke by

chatter) 22:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy delete per creator's request. The creator explicitly requested that the category be deleted, so there's no need to go forward with a full discussion. I've added a {db-author} tag. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 18 June 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.

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, with a few renames.

Bencherlite^Talk 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Category:French Filipinos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Thai people of French descent‎

Category:Uruguayans of French descent‎

Category:French-South Africans‎

Category:Venezuelans of French descent

Category:French Nicaraguans‎

Category:Luxembourgers of French descent‎

Category:Beninese people of French descent‎

Nominator's rationale: Serious overcategorization. These categories will never hold more than a handful of people, the majority of whom only have descent through a grandparent AT BEST. Bulldog123 (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - part of the 'Booian people of Foo descent' scheme. (I have no objection to renaming the 1st, 4th and 6th to the 'Booian people of Foo descent' format.)
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per roundhouse and rename to standard format. The French colonised Benin, so I doubt that people in Category:Beninese people of French descent‎ is as rare as nom suggests. Ditto on Category:Thai people of French descent‎ — the French were in Indochina for years and fought a war against the Thais, so there was a considerable amount of contact that most likely led to pregnancies. Luxembourg borders on France so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fair number for Category:Luxembourgers of French descent‎, either. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename the first, fourth, and 6th as suggested by Roundhouse Mayumashu (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and rename those named by Roundhouse. Nominator is beating a dead horse; these categories are notable, regardless how few people are currently found in them Hmains (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly believe that many users are glancing over this nomination and misunderstanding the purpose. There is no, and never was, an argument that "these categories are not notable. For example: What doesn't make sense is the need to have the categories:
    WP:OCAT)? If someone is born in Nigeria and then moves to England why can't they simply have the categories Category:Nigerian people and Category:British people. If they are English people of Nigerian descent, why not just the category Category:People of Nigerian descent - it doesn't make much sense to have a THIRD (and eventually fourth and fifth) category? Please somebody address this in the rationale for keep at least. Bulldog123 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • In such a situation Category:British people and Category:Nigerian people would be huge, and part of the point of subdividing categories is to assist in locating information about people who share related characteristics or features. To lump Nigerian-descended people that are British with everyone else in the Nigerian people category could be confusing and, ultimately, unhelpful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in such a case you would nominate to merge, not to delete. (I, and I would guess most contributors who ve made comments here would vote to keep regardless) Also, I don t know what the fourth and fifth divisions would be? I for one would vote against further subdivision Mayumashu (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for consistency purposes and rename those named by Roundhouse. Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and apply naming standardization per Roundhouse. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Booians of Fooian descent (unless unpopulated). Rename Fooian-Booians to the other format. We have had this discussion many times in the last few weeks, invariably with that outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 22 June 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.

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.

Bencherlite^Talk 00:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• • Objection, to generate further discussion Not trying to be difficult. But isn't this
    WP:OC#SMALL? Right now, the category only has 14 games, and most of them could just as easily be categorized as Category:Business simulation games. I might suggest merging this category into that one, and explaining the distinction in other articles. Randomran (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Response - I've read
      WP:OC
      and don't see how this category matches any of the examples given in the guideline.

1. Trading is the defining feature of these games. It is not just an incidental fact that has little impact on the subject matter.
2. It is not about an opinion.
3. The category is not based on an subjective opinion about a game.
4. It is not arbitrary, such as listing "Games with status ailments due to stun attacks", or "Pirate games featuring Black Beard, the pirate".
5. It is not an intersection of two categories.
6. The category does not deal with location.
7. The category does not deal with ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference.
8. The category is not a narrow intersection.
9. The category is not small. It has almost 20 articles at the moment. There's no reason to think that the category has no room for growth. A developer could make a new game in the genre at any time.
10. The categories are nested rather than overlapping--i.e., this category belongs under another, a third category belongs to this one.
11. The remaining examples don't apply.

--

talk) 23:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• • • • Usually a category has to be ~75 or more to be considered large enough to be viable. At least, that's what I've been told. Most of the games in that category could be classified as Category:Business simulation games. It's small, overlapping, and redundant. Trading is a business, whether you're trading drugs, silks, or diamonds. I think a merge is appropriate here. Randomran (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said, the categories are not laterally overlapping like the examples provided in the guideline; rather, they are nested within each other as sub-categories, which seems to be encouraged on Wikipedia. Secondly, the 75 article number is nonsense. This topic was just raised in WikiProject Video Games and 5 or 6 was suggested as a good number. Finally, as far as the definition of "business", if we take the Wikipedia article on
          talk) 03:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Support rename. 1 subcat, 3 sub-sub cats, 20+ articles is not small or OC in my view.
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• PS - is it not a subcat of
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yes, merging it wouldn't do more to make it fall under business sim.
  talk) 15:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Question What's the standard practice here? I remember reading somewhere that the number required for a new category was 60 or 70? Or am I confusing this with the standard practice when it comes to creating a new stub type? Randomran (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't know where you read 60 or 70, but small categories are fine if they are reasonable. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename Rename to fit other similar categories. This is a notable and discriminate subcategory of business simulation game. Concerns about size and overlap were due to a misunderstanding. I'm pretty sure I read that in some of the discussions for Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals and accidentally applied the size requirement there to categories in general. A solid 20 or so games is fine by me. Randomran (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you got that backwards: business is an aspect of economics, ergo business simulations are a sub-category of economic simulators. Other aspects, besides "legitimate business", include state interference and crime.

talk) 00:29, 19 June 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.

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.

Bencherlite^Talk 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Suggest merging Category:Greek fascists to Category:Fascists

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Contains only one entry, validity of which is disputed (consensus seems to be that Metaxas was not a fascist per se); and one subcat with one entry.

talk) 12:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• keep as part of a pattern and a necessary parent for the Greek neo-nazi category. Also, the WP article demonstrates that Metaxas was a fascist so the 'consensus' is that he belongs in this category. Hmains (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 08:59, 20 June 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.

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.

Bencherlite^Talk 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Suggest merging Category:Greek neo-Nazis to Category:Neo-fascists

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Contains only a single entry.

talk) 12:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• keep as part of a pattern that has by-country categories for neo-nazis, which this person certainly is. Neo-fascists are a different category. Hmains (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment neo-nazi =/= neo-fascist; a neo-nazi is a racial supremacist, a neo-fascist is a fascist, which has nothing to do with race. 70.55.86.167 (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As far as I can tell from
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep for consistency puproses. Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 20 June 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.