Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 8

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 7 March 9 >

March 8

Category:People from Hickory, Mississippi

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) 23:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William 22:31, 8 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.

Category:River disambiguation pages

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) 22:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two dab page categories duplicate talk page (editor-side) project categories (
CAT:DABP#Notes). For info: an example of a previous CFD for a disambiguation page category is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_19#Category:Bridge_disambiguation_pages. DexDor (talk) 22:22, 8 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.

Category:Films based on Australian novels

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: not sure why this is needed with existing category "Films based on works by Australian writers"; currently means that many novels are de facto miscategorized under the broader category Doprendek (talk) 19:30, 8 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.

0-level categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting:
Nominator's rationale: - Per established precedent that 0-level categories are not helpful to the encyclopedia, see here. VegaDark (talk) 18:46, 8 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.

Category:Poets from Oregon

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have a broader poets-by-state division - if we're to split the parent we should use the by-century subcats instead. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you search that way there are a variety of problems: 1) poets are part of the writers tree, so they should not be in the people cat; 2) apparently you want to ignore the fact that we already try to diffuse the "people from Oregon" cat into county/city specific sub cats, thus you would have to search a whole lot more than that single search string. As to the rest of the argument, for the upteenth time, we do this sort of thing for occupations all the time, and there is rarely a connection of a specific style associated with a state subcat. As to Good Olfactory, sorry, but otherstuffdoesn't exist is also an invalid argument, as all one needs to do then is go out and create the other subcats, and that does not seem like a proper way to judge whether or not we should have a cat. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an "invalid argument". You may disagree with the strength of the argument and may not be convinced by it, but your opinion doesn't make it invalid. It's valid because this is not part of an overall scheme, and oftentimes the presence or absence of an overall scheme is a factor to be considered when deciding the fate of an individual category. Also, my other comments indicate that I don't think someone should go out and create categories for all the other states of the U.S., so the method by which you "invalidated" my argument is weak. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As
    WP:SMALLCAT. The reason that is a a reason to keep and not delete is explained above because we can simply go make the scheme exist. Thus, that is why your argument is invalid as to the OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST. As to your only other argument, it falls on its face. Apparently you have no problem categorizing poets by nationality (or even by subdivisions that are not nations), which also then requires the reader to know which nationality someone is from in order to find them, which can be tricky with changing national borders over the passage of centuries. Not to mention, we do this for a wide variety of occupations. Not to mention, you already have to figure out which subcat by genre the poet is in, since American poets has several genre subcats to go along with a variety of other common splits by race/ethnicity/gender. Lastly, if you really think about it, and I doubt you will, this actually is part of a larger scheme - division by state/occupation. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I don't think I'm using the argument in the way that you seem to think I am. I'm certainly not using it in the way that
    WP:OSE describes as being "invalid". There is more nuance to what I (and others) have said above than just a bare assertion of "OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST", and I would appreciate it if you stopped characterizing it that way. And I believe that there is a much greater difference between categorizing by nationality and categorizing by U.S. state than you suggest. (And "Scottish" is a nationality and "Scotland" is a country, BTW.) Regarding your final sentence—there is no need to be snarky or rude; there are indeed multiple category trees involved with most categories. I'm personally not a big fan of dividing people by U.S. state and occupation—I think it hinders rather than enhances overall navigation and the ability to find articles through categories—which is why I'm not convinced by the need to retain this branch of the tree you mention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 27 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.

Agencies

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 merge; these were missed in the "by country" clean up that came with the previous close. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per reasoning of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_27#Category:Agencies Tim! (talk) 10:08, 8 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.

Category:Asia-Pacific Association for International Education

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. If anyone wishes to listify, they can do so by creating Asia-Pacific Association for International Education, which does not yet exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a university/college is (currently) a member of an association is not a permanent
WP:DEFINING characteristic of the university/college. This sort of thing would be more appropriate as a list in an article about the association (with dates etc) than in a category (if it is necessary at all in Wikipedia as in most/all cases we can link to an official website containing a list). Note: It would be much better to create any such list from a RS (e.g. the association's website), rather than from the current content of this category; so listifying the category is unnecessary. For info: A previous CFD for such a category is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_16#Category:1994_Group. DexDor (talk) 06:45, 8 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.

Category:People Targeted by the FBI

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Scope poorly defined, could include tens of thousands. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My main concern is "targeted" usually refers to attempts to kill, but many of these people were only investigated by the FBI.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- Is this an ATTACK category? If it is people investigated by FBI, but not charged or convicted, we really ought not to have it. CRime categories are normally limited to people convicted of crime. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 10 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_8&oldid=1074813538"