Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 29 May 1 >

April 30

[edit]

Category:Irish Karateka

[edit]
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 (error) by Mike Selinker. Bencherlite 16:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Irish Karateka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Accidental creation with wrong capitalization. Correct capitalization (Category:Irish karateka) already in place as intended. Scott Alter 23:29, 30 April 2007 (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:Satirical opera

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As discussed by the Opera project here, this isn't a genuine stylistic opera genre but a vague subject category which is neither well-defined or useful. --Kleinzach 23:23, 30 April 2007 (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:Zines and Zinesters in the Philippines

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Zines and Zinesters in the Philippines to Category:Philippine magazines
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.

English surnames

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Langley (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Langtry (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Exactly what categories should not be used for - a collection of unconnected people who happen to share the same surname. Warofdreams talk 22:42, 30 April 2007 (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.

Elections by year

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Elections in Canada, 2007 to Category:2007 elections in Canada
Category:Philippine elections, 2007 to Category:2007 elections in the Philippines
Nominator's Rationale: for consistency with other [year] elections in [country] categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 30 April 2007 (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:Schizophrenic fictional characters

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify & delete. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Schizophrenic fictional characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Arguably defining, but in many cases unsaid and left unexplicit. Subjective inclusion. Requires medical diagnosis on fictional characters etc. etc. Precedent with psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, alcoholics, shopaholics, compulsive eaters categories stands. Instead, I suggest an annotated Schizophrenia in fiction article. Delete. ~ZytheTalk to me! 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and listify because the public applies the term incorrectly more often than not. An annotated article would be very appropriate because it can cite specific references to a diagnosis of a schizophrenic disorder. Doczilla 07:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless one of the characters is verifiably schizophrenic It looks like none of the three articles in this category are for characters who are verifiably schizophrenic, as in you can point to something in the fictional work that explicitly states "this character is schizophrenic". There are fictional characters who are, according to the fiction itself, schizophrenic. So if any of those verifiable characters have articles then I'm ok with using this category for them. But in the meantime, since the three articles currently there aren't verifiable candidates, delete the category. Dugwiki 16:21, 1 May 2007 (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's Republic of Mongolia

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People's Republic of Mongolia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Replaced by Category: Mongolian Peoples Republic. Yaan 15:22, 30 April 2007 (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:Williams County Townships

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Williams County Townships to Category:Townships in Ohio
  • Merge, it's not specific which state (it's Ohio) and no other county has such a category. As well, the only page that was in it had an erroneous name and has been redirected to a page not in the category. The statewide townships page has been established as the proper place for all township pages. Nyttend 14:45, 30 April 2007 (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.

Drought

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 15:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Droughts to Category:Drought MrZaiustalk 05:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that, plus I notice that Category:Tornadoes is not a sub-cat of Category:Tornado, which seems odd - each is referenced on the other's page, but being a sub-cat would be more natural. Johnbod 11:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly no objection to renaming along those lines (and the same with Category:Tornado → Category:Tornado science and any others that are like that. It would mean keeping the plural for the category on the individual weather events though, no? Grutness...wha? 00:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's Category:Tornado science with sub-cat Category:Tornadoes surely? Johnbod 17:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... that's what I said. The individual weather events would be at Category:Tornadoes or {{Droughts}}, etc - not Category:Tornado or Category:Drought (i.e., keeping the current name up for renaming). They would be a subcat of the "X science" cats, and presumably of some other parent cat like Category:Weather events. Grutness...wha? 02:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the arrow is confusing for simple folk like me Johnbod 02:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

People by city in Wales

[edit]
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: do not rename. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by city in Wales to Category:Welsh people by city Speedy criterion #4.— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:26, 26 April 2007 (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.

British Georgian

[edit]
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 "of descent". Deletion was also suggested, but should be discussed in a new nomination if desired, for clarity's sake. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British Georgian to Category:British Georgians Philip Stevens 05:27, 26 April 2007 (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.

Hollywood movie studios

[edit]
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. Perhaps a new speedy criterion could be instated fo this. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hollywood movie studios to Category:Hollywood film studios per convention of Category:Film studios. Otto4711 04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry are we both talking about the same item (Hollywood movie studios)? I see no change in capitalization, pluralization, or typographical errors, nor do I see how changing the word movie to film is a by/of/in conformance. --After Midnight 0001 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • D'oh. I seem to've confused myself. When I wrote that, your comment looked like it was addressing three items, MPO, Bahamiam and Hollywood, as a group, because I wasn't paying attention. <fzzzt, spark pop> Anyway, the Hollywood one is a naming conventions no-brainer; we consistently always use "film" in category and article names. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that you may have consensus at that location, but that is not a by/of/in conformance and it is not at WP:NCCAT as specified in #4 and it is not linked to in #4, so a) it's a bit hard to make the leap that anyone would find that and b) I'm not convinced that it meets the criteria, unless you are asking me to WP:IAR. --After Midnight 0001 03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to see this moved to the discussion section of CFD. Though I understand Peg's (and others') comment on naming conventions, it seems to directly contradict the convention of using US English for US-specific subjects. The latter suggests that we can have "English footballers" and "American soccer players", and could similarly have "English film studios" and "American movie studios". Since we've got a clash of naming conventions, perhaps it needs to be sorted out below. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved from speedy. No opinion on this.--Mike Selinker 14:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?? I wasn't aware that "film" and "movie" had geographic issues. I'm not suggesting anyone IAR, the discussion I listed is the only guideline regarding film vs movie, and I honestly have no preference. Let me know what you-all decide, and may I suggest you consult WP:FILM? Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, though I agree that this was probably best dealt with through CfD. To address Grutness's point, I am an American and a Californian, and I think I can say with some authority that both terms are widely used here, although "movie studio" is more common. Nevertheless, this not a case where Commonwealthish and American are disjunct, as with "footballers" vs. "soccer players". This is a case where they overlap heavily, and thus one could reasonably refer to "film studio" as international usage. Xtifr tälk 14:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case I've no objection to the rename as per the originally cited convention. Thanks for clearing that point up - I always assumed that "movie" was the US standard. Grutness...wha? 00:06, 2 May 2007 (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:Seventh-octave singers

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This shares one of the core problems experienced in Piccolo (coloratura) (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piccolo (coloratura)), which is that documentation of this phenomenon appears to be confined to a few very enthusiastic fans of a few individual singers. By common ocnsent, one does not sing in this register, it is described as "unmusical" in some sources, but that's not the problem, the problem is that the sourcing for inclusion is generally original research, with YouTube videos being cited as proof of ability to sing high notes. All these individuals are in any case included in the less contentious Category:Whistle register singers. So this category is largely redundant, sparsely populated and will always be so, redundant per another category only marginally larger and with less contentious inclusion, inclusion is based on original research, and I'm not convinced that someone is not doing an end-run around deletion policy somewhere along the line because we have consistently seen attempts to produce articles and categories for singers capable of super-high notes exhibited by (it is asserted) almost no living singer other than Mariah Carey. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 30 April 2007 (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 Beatles' wives

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Beatles' wives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - small category with little or no potential for growth. The spouses are linked to their husbands through their articles. Otto4711 13:20, 30 April 2007 (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:Parodies of Conan the Barbarian

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parodies of Conan the Barbarian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - first, while each of the articles asserts that the subject was created as a parody of Conan, reliable sourcing on the point sems rather sparse. A lot of the potential sourcing appears based in the assumption that these characters must be parodies as opposed to any declaration of intention by the characters' creators. Even were there reliable sources for each of them, I question the utility of creating categories to capture parodies of specific characters. Otto4711 13:11, 30 April 2007 (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:National slang

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:National slang to Category:Slang by language
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I think it would make more sense to categorize "slang" by language rather than nationality or country. Current sub-categorization follows this. -- Cat chi? 12:32, 30 April 2007 (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 by nationality and occupation

[edit]
Category:People by occupation and nationality
[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People by occupation and nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:People by nationality and occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One or the other is redundant. I suggest a merge. Not certain which one to throw away since its a mere order of words. The two categories do not seem to be doing the same thing. Perhaps an alternative solution is renaming the categories to something more clear in their intention. -- Cat chi? 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) *Strong Keep - in no way is this a "mere order of words". You are right that the categories don't do the same thing, but that's because they are not meant to do the same thing! Category:People by occupation and nationality gives you all the sub-categories of occupations, e.g. Category:Engineers, with its subcategories of Engineers by nationality, e.g. Category:Italian engineers. This way, you can easily jump from Italian engineers to French engineers, and so on. And then Category:People by nationality and occupation does things the other way round - you get sub-categories of nationalities, each with their sub-categories of occupation. So you'd use this to jump from Category:Italian engineers to Category:Italian architects. They are not redundant categories; rather, they are two different ways of organising the category tree above them (note that there are no articles in either category, so they are only used for structuring the tree). Merging would create one horrible mess and make it very difficult to navigate. Or are you suggesting a complete change to the structure of Category:Fooers by nationality and Fooian people by occupation? If so, what?! Bencherlite 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not rabidly anti-renaming, but have these names really confused anyone (nominator apart), particularly those creating categories? They can just cut-'n-paste-'n-tweak from corresponding categories, as usual. Renaming is a solution in search of a real problem. Of the two, if the decision is 'rename', I prefer Mike's suggestion (with the explicatory past participle) as clearer, whereas Xtifr's has the "same problem" as the status quo of using the same words for each category in a different order without further explanation. Bencherlite 14:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of proposed the renamings seem to me to be significantly better than the status quo. Looking at the suggestion of Category:People by occupation, sorted by nationality and Category:People by nationality, sorted by occupation, I honestly can't tell which of the existing categories relates to which of the new names. I suppose if I thought about it for ;onger I'd figure it out, but I can't see any reader hanging around for long enough to figure out which is which. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change my vote to Keep: BrownHairedGirl makes a good point. Seems to me that accuracy, conciseness, and easy comprehension are the three factors at stake, and that no proposed option meets all three. All are reasonably concise and accurate, and anyone clicking into either category can easily comprehend what it's about; so I'm changing my vote to "keep the status quo." -Pete 20:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I don't think a rename is really needed, but the best option is People by nationality by occupation and People by occupation by nationality. -- Prove It (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bencherlite makes a good point. I'm not clear on the intended use of the categories, so I don't know "how important" this is, or whether it warrants a change. But I believe the current names, and the "People by nationality by occupation" variants, fail almost entirely to communicate what they're for. "People by occupation, sorted by nationality" is somewhat better in that regard. How important any of that is, I'm not so sure. But I would oppose Xtifr's formulation in favor of keeping the current names - I don't think it's enough of an improvement to justify a change. -Pete 22:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote is for delete. There is a general problem with categories that involve AND. We end up with fragmented categories (e.g. women AND computer scientists AND formal methods specialists AND Russian) and major anomalies (see my comments on Category:Logicians). I believe the long-term solution is to improve the Wikipedia software to handle Boolean logic across categories. --RichardVeryard 11:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Richard, I think that you may have misunderstood the situation here. The intersection between nationality and occupation already exists, with thousands of categories; deleting these two categories would just make these categories harder to find. Hopefully, the software will eventually allow us to use boolean logic across categories, but until it does we have to work with the limitations of the software as it is (rather than how we might like it to be). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 6 May 2007 (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:Immigrants by nationality

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Immigrants by nationality to Category:Immigrants by country
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, All of the subcats are by country. I also ponder the usefullness of these categories. People immigrate every day but no one is notable for immigrating. -- Cat chi? 11:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Coats of arms by nation

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Coats of arms by nation to Category:Coats of arms by country
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, All of the subcats are by country. A similar rename was conducted in commons -- Cat chi? 11:54, 30 April 2007 (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:Breast cancer activists

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Breast cancer activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete Most of these people are just celebrities who have been to a charity gala and delivered a few lines about how terrible breast cancer is to the celebrity media pack, and the like. This category is not defining at all. Brandon97 09:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as subcategory of Category:Health activists This seems to be a reasonable attempt to partially subdivide Health activists by specific issue. Breast cancer is clearly a popular specific health problem that attracts activism, so this subcategory is a good way to collect those people whose articles make notable mention of breast cancer activism. Celebrity articles which don't actually mention breast cancer activism should be removed from the category, but the category itself should be kept. Dugwiki 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no chance at all that Dugwiki's suggestion will be implemented effectively in a wiki environment. The "activist" categories are overused, and there is no effective way to eliminate such bad categorisation other than complete removal. Haddiscoe 19:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm not suggesting anything out of the ordinary - all categories should only include articles that notably mention the categorization criteria. You should not include any article in any category if the category isn't talked about in the article (eg if it's not in the article then it's not verified to be true, and thus it should not be a member of the category involved). This is standard procedure for all categories. Dugwiki 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can answer the inclusion criteria question. This would be the subcategory of Category:Health activists articles which are people whose articles specifically talk about their work against breast cancer. So assuming that "health activists" is an acceptable category with an objective inclusion criteria, this subcategory likewise can be objectively defined. As far as being a "defining characteristic", it is probably a defining characteristic in the context of health activism. That is, as a subcategory of "Health activists", it is telling you what specific type of health activism the person pursues.
So really I only see two reasonable reasons to consider deleting the category. One would be that Category:Health activists isn't large enough to warrant subcategorization in the first place. The other would be that health activists as a rule are not normally focussed on a particular specific health issue but engage in activism on multiple health causes, such as simultaneously working to help fights against various types of cancer and heart disease and AIDS and other things. However I'm not sure there's much evidence in support of either of those arguments, which is why I went with the Keep recommendation above. Dugwiki 21:34, 2 May 2007 (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:Manga and anime sidekicks

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manga and anime sidekicks to Category:Anime and manga sidekicks

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:Fundamental theism

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fundamental theism to Category:Fundamentalism
  • Merge for the following reasons:

--Kevinkor2 04:24, 30 April 2007 (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:Monsters, Inc. characters

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Monsters, Inc. characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. This category isn't needed anymore, as all the characters are in one list page now: List of Monsters, Inc. characters. RobJ1981 04:21, 30 April 2007 (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:Gamers

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gamers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - see also the related nomination of the fictional gamers subcat. In most instances, playing video games is not a defining characteristic. In many instances it's not even an important characteristic. For those who play games professionally, Category:Electronic sports players already exists. Otto4711 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, articles should be categorized by what the people are notable for, and some people are notable specifically for their involvement in a hobby. Many of the articles in Category:People associated with sports and hobbies are specifically about people who engage in basically full time pursuits of their sports or hobby, or are even professional hobbyists. So while I agree that articles which don't really mention the hobby should not be included in such categories, you do need to have categories for articles about people whose primary notable feature is that they are a serious hobbyist. Dugwiki 16:59, 30 April 2007 (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:Keentoons

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Keentoons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - Appears to be redundant to Category:Keenspot and even if not the paltry material in it does not require the category. Otto4711 02:35, 30 April 2007 (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:Newshounds

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - seven of the ten items in the category are anthologies, which are already in the anthologies subcat (which is in the Category:Comics anthologies). The remaining articles are for the creator (which is improper person by project categorization) a character list and a template, all of which is interlinked. No need of the category. Otto4711 02:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Seventh Generation video games

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Seventh Generation video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: the term is not in popular usage (see history of video game consoles (seventh generation)) and the category is improperly capitalized. If kept, the category should only exist as a parent for the categories for the relevant consoles' games: Category:PlayStation 3 games, Category:Wii games, and Category:Xbox 360 games. -Sean Curtin 02:23, 30 April 2007 (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:8-Bit Theater

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:8-Bit Theater (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - category contains four easily interlocked articles and about a dozen images. The material in the category is insufficient to warrant it. Otto4711 02:22, 30 April 2007 (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:Blind Ferret Entertainment

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Blind Ferret Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the category is named for Blind Ferret Entertainment but that is a redirect to Least I Could Do. The category is capturing webcomics "associated" with Blind Ferret Entertainment, but the "associations" noted in the various articles are so weak as to not warrant categorization. For instance, VG Cats is categorized because the wriiter of VG Cats is an "acquiantance" of the writer of 8-Bit Theater, whose own association with Blind Ferret is not terribly clear from the various articles. The small amount of easily interlinkable material, the lack of strong association between the categorized items and the lack of an article that matches the category name indicates that the category should be deleted. Otto4711 02:20, 30 April 2007 (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 Wotch

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Wotch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - the quantity of material (article, template, a few images) does not necessitate an eponymous category. Otto4711 02:09, 30 April 2007 (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:Order of the Stick

[edit]
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. Lovely comic, though, and can we please undelete Roy? >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Order of the Stick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - after creating and populating the characters subcat there is the main article, a locations article and a template plus the characters subcat. All of the articles are extensively interlinked through the texts and the template making the category unnecessary for navigation. Otto4711 02:03, 30 April 2007 (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:Referenda in the United States

[edit]
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:Initiatives and referendums in the United States. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Referenda in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Ballot measures in the United States or Ballot propositions in the United States Category:Initiatives and referendums in the United States. Based on the current contents of this category, it would be better named "Ballot measures in the United States" or "Ballot propositions in the United States."

There are 3 types of ballot measures/propositions:

  • initiatives, which are put on the ballot by popular petition;
  • referenda, which repeal an act of the legislature; and
  • legislative referrals, which the legislature votes to place on the ballot.

(None of this is currently explained very adequately on the Wikipedia pages; I intend to fix them when I get the chance.)

Since US state pages break down measures by year, not by type, it would make more sense for the parent category to include all 3 types.

-Pete 01:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "referral" and "referendum" are synonymous in this context, and I have no preference between the terms. Note, I just created a page Ballot measures based on this line of thinking, as well. "Ballot measure" is the common phrase here in Oregon, and I believe "Proposition" is used (with the same meaning) in Nevada, California, Arizona, and perhaps other states. -Pete 02:30, 30 April 2007 (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:Kickboxers by nationality

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kickboxers by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Strong Delete, Unused category - empty for over 1 week. No other martial arts have a "by nationality" category. It is unnecessary in the category scheme. Category:Kickboxers is a category for kickboxers by nationality. Please read Category_talk:Kickboxers by nationality before voting and add your rational. --Scott Alter 01:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Category not needed. Tkjazzer 02:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied: "Within Wikipedia, "Martial Arts" is treated as one sport with lots of sub-sports. Category:Martial arts practitioners by nationality is already integrated within all of the sports-related articles. To do this for every martial art will add about 30 new sports to be integrated (see Category:Martial arts practitioners for this breakdown). If you insist on the "by nationality" tag, then just rename all of the categories within Category:Martial arts practitioners to "martial art practitioner by nationality". --Scott Alter 02:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)" Tkjazzer 02:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It looks like the nominator emptied this category himself a week ago prior to nominating it for deletion as "empty". I have repopulated the category as it was intended. So unless there are other objections besides "the category I just emptied isn't needed because it's empty", keep and do not depopulate. Dugwiki 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BHG and also per Dugwiki, having checked Scott Alter's contribution history. It's not on to empty a category (without prior discussion, as far as I can see) and then rely on it being empty as a ground for deletion! Bencherlite 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason not to subcategorise kickboxers in the same way as members of most other groups. Haddiscoe 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since everyone is in favor of using the additional level of classification, all of the martial artist practitioner categories need to be reclassified. See Category_talk:Kickboxers by nationality for a proposed category structure. By adding the "by nationality" to all the martial arts, about 150 categories will need to be moved from "martial art practitioners" to "martial art practitioners by nationality". Any volunteers? --Scott Alter 22:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You probably don't need to do this for every martial art form. Seems to me this is only worth considering for martial artist categories that have enough articles to warrant subdividing the artists by nationality. For example, it doesn't look like you'd need to do this for Category:Capoeira practitioners since there are only eight non-fictional practitioners. There's no reason to subdivide that category further. (By the way, it doesn't matter too much to me if we use this subcategorization or not. I mainly objected to the fact that the category was intentionally emptied prior to the cfd.) Dugwiki 22:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Sleep On It 21:14, 3 May 2007 (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/2007_April_30&oldid=1144513656"