Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 15

< August 14	August 16 >

August 15

Category:Towns and cities with limited zero-fare transport

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 Category:Towns and cities with limited zero-fare transport to Category:Towns and cities with zero-fare transport as an interim pending wider consideration of topic. --Xdamr^talk 13:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Towns and cities with limited zero-fare transport to Category:Towns and cities with zero-fare transport

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merge two not overly large categories. I fail to be convinced that it is defining in any way to only have partial or limited zero-fare routes. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge at least - having some free buses or trams or whatever is certainly non-defining of the communities. I question whether having ~~all~~ extensive free buses or trams or whatever is as well so would not be averse to the listification and deletion of the target as well. Otto4711 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think Category:Towns and cities with zero-fare transport means all free, read the introduction. It does not mean that all routes are free. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to "extensive" which makes it even worse by introducing an element of subjectivity along with the possible non-definingness of the attribute. Otto4711 (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See this related nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 16 August 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:Critics of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia

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. Per long-standing guidelines, categorisation by opinion is overcategorisation and is therefore to be avioded. Whereas there is a legitimate basis for categorising activists, there is not for mere opinion holders. --Xdamr^talk 12:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is not a defining characteristic for people. A list of such critics may be more appropriate.gadfium 21:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All of the individuals on the list have expressed through written works or public statements their opposition to the bombing or they have expressed concerns regarding it. This category is similiar to categories such as "Critics of wikipedia", "Anti-Iraq war activists", "criticism of feminism", ect.. I don't see why it should be deleted. --Happywith006 (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see nothing wrong with this as long as the people in the category are truly critics as noted. Why can't it be a defining characteristic? It is a pretty important international political stance, after all. And why is a list, which accomplishes basically the same thing but not as neatly, ok? I don't get it. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- People in the category are notable for reasons other than their criticism of the bombing. Anyone who is politically active will have documented opinions on hundreds of issues; it is not reasonable to assign them to hundreds of categories on that basis. The guideline WP:OC#OPINION specifically says: Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue....-gadfium 04:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If a person is notable, it will be for several reasons. Holding a particular view on this will be a minor part of the periosn's notability. If they are notable only for this, they will not be notable at all. This involves holding a particular political opinion on a particular issue. It might possibly be listified, but better not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear-cut overcategorization by opinion about a particular issue. Otto4711 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although being a critic of something may be a distinguishing characteristic, I do not think that this is one of those cases. Rather, this is indeed overcategorisation. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear-cut overcategorisation by opinion about a particular issue. ^ross ^nixon 03:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#OPINION. It would set a bad precedent if categories were created for every possible issue someone had supported or criticised. Some critical views can be a significant or defining aspect of a person's notability, but this is not the case of the biographies in this category. Spellcast (talk) 20:11, 18 August 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:Fictional escapees

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. --Xdamr^talk 12:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. (Twinkle at my initial Nomination reason, good job, Twinkle.) This is a recreation of an already deleted category. As well, most characters listed are clearly of the 'we get caught, get out, cause trouble, get cuaght, lather, rinse, repeat' variety, wherein their 'inprisonment is a minor facet of their situation, no different than 'we cause trouble, get defeated, sneak away, only to months of fictional time later cause trouble, get defeated, lather rinse repeat'. ThuranX (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've placed a speedy deletion tag on it, with a link to the previous CfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the speedy as there were a number of discussions (visible at Category talk:Fictional escapees) after that one that resulted in no-consensus closes. It needs a new mandate for deletion. Woody (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being captured and escaping is so commonplace of a trope that I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of fictional character articles would fit into this category. It imparts little or no encyclopedic information about the character and offers no assistance to anyone who might be researching the trope. Otto4711 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. (sic) Debresser (talk) 23:12, 16 August 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:Public transport in the United States by state

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 Category:Public transport in the United States by state to Category:Public transportation in the United States by state. --Xdamr^talk 13:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Public transport in the United States by state to Category:Public transportation in the United States by state

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Transportation is used over transport in the US. This change also matches what is used in both parents, Category:Public transportation in the United States and Category:Transportation in the United States by state. If this change is approved, additional nominations would be needed to standardize on a single form. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator, and let's have the additional nominations. You may add them here. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is likely to be close to 100 nominations. If you want to add them here go right ahead. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:16, 17 August 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:Polyborus

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 Category:Polyborus to Category:Caracara. --Xdamr^talk 13:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is for the genus Polyborus. It was renamed Caracara, so there are no species in the genus Polyborus. Caracara has a corresponding category. TDogg310 (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. Wish people could agree upon names from the start, though. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Category:Caracara. This should be speediable. Otto4711 (talk) 23:31, 16 August 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:Novels about actresses

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 Category:Novels about actresses to Category:Novels about actors. --Xdamr^talk 13:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Novels about actresses to Category:Novels about actors

Nominator's rationale: Rename A leftover category after other "...about actresses" categories for films and documentaries were renamed earlier this year. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the risk of being compared to one crying in the desert... Why not rename this to Category:Novels about female actors? I really don't see why actresses must be "actors", when we do have "female politicians" (see a nomination of a few days ago).Debresser (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I have no problem with Debresser's suggestion but I expect if the category is renamed, novels about male actors could be found, such as The Ragman's Son. A combined category for both male and female actors would seem sensible. Cjc13 (talk) 13:48, 17 August 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:Expatriate soccer players in Australia

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 Category:Expatriate soccer players in Australia to Category:Expatriate football (soccer) players in Australia. --Xdamr^talk 13:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Expatriate soccer players in Australia to Category:Expatriate football (soccer) players in Australia

Nominator's rationale: as per Category:Australian football (soccer) players, Category:Football (soccer) in Australia, etc., as the sport goes by both 'soccer' (traditionally) and 'football' (comptemporarily) in Australia Mayumashu (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support to distinguish from Austrialian rules football, though I doubt there are many expatriates for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wayne Schwass, Trent Croad, Donald Dickie, Daniel McAlister, Brent Renouf... Category:New Zealand players of Australian rules football is an education... (support, BTW). Grutness...wha? 23:12, 16 August 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.