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.
BencherliteTalk 00:46, 24 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.
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
Richard Dawkins the argument of Blackeagles - atheism is never defining - collapses as Dawkins' atheism is certainly defining.
-- 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
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.
Otto4711 (
talk) 02:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Yet the theist category got killed off. --
Blackeagles (
talk) 18:06, 20 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 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
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:Untitled Albums
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
Nominator's rationale: Joke category created by user
Here because I'm here who seems to be on a bad humor spree of some kind. All albums have titles, even those without. Nate•(
chatter) 22:24, 18 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.
Category:Dead animals
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
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
Here because I'm here. Nate•(
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.
Category:French Filipinos
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.
BencherliteTalk 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)reply
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 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:
Category:Nigerian people,
Category:People of Nigerian descent, and all the X people of Nigerian descent? Especially when the category has very little potential for growth (
WP:OCAT), and is a narrow intersection (
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.
BencherliteTalk 00:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Objection, to generate further discussion Not trying to be difficult. But isn't this
WP:Overcategorization? Particularly
WP:OC#OVERLAPPING and
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.
Trading is the defining feature of these games. It is not just an incidental fact that has little impact on the subject matter.
It is not about an opinion.
The category is not based on an subjective opinion about a game.
It is not arbitrary, such as listing "Games with status ailments due to stun attacks", or "Pirate games featuring Black Beard, the pirate".
It is not an intersection of two categories.
The category does not deal with location.
The category does not deal with ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference.
The category is not a narrow intersection.
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.
The categories are nested rather than overlapping--i.e., this category belongs under another, a third category belongs to this one.
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
Business as an authority, illegality and state-ownership are specifically raised as confusing the meaning of the word.
SharkD (
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
Yes, merging it wouldn't do more to make it fall under business sim.
SharkD (
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.
SharkD (
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.
Category:Greek fascists
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.
BencherliteTalk 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)reply
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.
Stlemur (
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
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:Greek neo-Nazis
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.
BencherliteTalk 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Contains only a single entry.
Stlemur (
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
Fascism a neo-Nazi is a type of neo-fascist ("German Nazism was a form of racially-oriented fascism"). So this makes the (neo)-Nazi cats subcats of the corresponding (neo)-fascist ones. And then subcatting
Category:Neo-fascists by nationality is a standard procedure (leading necessarily on occasion to small subcats).
-- 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.