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.
Comment/oppose. These don't really seem like speediable matters to me. The outcome of the discussion linked to was far from a clear-cut precedent-setting result—no one could really decide which way the merge should have gone—and there are pre-existing schemes for both scientific names and common names. Especially since there are articles for
Puffbird and
Potoo, a discussion would seem be appropriate to me, even if it will result in the same sort of uncertainty that the last discussion did.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose, and the Waxwings decision was ill-advised as well. These are parts of two entirely seperate trees, one birds by scientific name and one birds by common name, both of which fit under the
WP:SMALLCAT exemption, and merging them piecemeal guts the trees. The need to all be merged, eliminating one or the other tree, or none should be merged at all. -
The BushrangerOne ping only18:11, 16 August 2013 (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:African-American television drama series
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.
Nominator's rationale: The same arguments apply to this renamed category as applied when this was called Black television drama series: we do not categorize by race; the definition is too subjective, leaving it to editors to decide what percentage of the cast is large enough for an article to be placed in the category; and this kind of categorization obscures as much as it reveals. This is an encyclopedia, and I do not think this categorization is encyclopedic. The Old JacobiteThe '4514:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete There is no clear cut line to say when something counts as this and when it does not. Any percentage that we say the top cast has to be to qualify will be arbitrary. Beyond this, there is the issue that at times African-American actors are cast in roles where the character is not African-American. What do you do then?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete television dramas don't have race; and how would we begin to classify them as such. There are certainly shows that have the lead characters portrayed by African-American actors but the shows "African-American" (as opposed to what? someone's definition of "real unhyphenated American" shows). Illogical category at best....
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:43, 9 August 2013 (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:Wikipedia:Chinese language
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.
Delete -- It contains articles using Chinese language and a user category for Chinese speaking users. A user category should not be in the main category space, so that this becomes a one-article category. Such categories are too small to be useful. Possibly upmerge.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:50, 10 August 2013 (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.
African-American child actors & 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.
NOTE: These have been split off from the group nom below to create a separate discussion in order to allow for proper consideration of their own characteristics because they are not fully analagous to the larger group of categories, all of which are sub-divided on the basis of medium or genre. The nominator is welcome to provide a rationale which applies to these categories if he wishes to do so.
Cgingold (
talk)
09:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge both as originally nominated I do not think we need to divide child actors by ethnicity at all. I see no reason why the general reasons to not overly divide by ethnicity do not apply here. This is still a bottom rung category, and we should not have bottom rung categories by ethnicity.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Ah, but
Category:African-American child actors is NOT, in fact, a "bottom rung category by ethnicity", but rather the proposed upmerge target. Please read thru my proposal again more carefully, and you will see that I am NOT proposing to keep
Category:African-American child actresses -- or to create its (missing) bottom-rung counterpart,
Category:African-American male child actors. In other words, the issue is completely eliminated, because we stay clear of the intersection of American child actors by gender with American child actors by ethnicity. I'm trying to lay this out as clearly as possible, JPL, and I'm hoping that I've succeeded this time.
Cgingold (
talk)
10:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment This is the only subdivision of American child actors by "ethnicity". I do not think such a subdivision is justified. There is no reason to subdivide the actors by ethnicity categories at all. There is even less reason to chose African-Americans as the one specially treated ethnic group, when they are actually smaller than at least one other ethnic group we are dividing by and not to this level (Hispanic and Latino Americans number more than African-Americans).
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)reply
As a matter of fact, this is NOT the only such category. I took note of your comment (below) on that very point; please take a look and you will see that there is indeed another such category,
Category:Hispanic and Latino American child actors, which I created and populated over a week ago. And please note that, like its counterpart,
Category:African-American child actors, it is NOT a "bottom rung category by ethnicity". As I pointed out above, both of these categories stay clear of the intersection of American child actors by gender with American child actors by ethnicity. I was hoping you would acknowledge that crucial point, but you chose to ignore that (as well as the fact that we are in agreement on eliminating
Category:African-American child actresses). It seems to me that I have shown quite clearly that the argument you've raised vis-a-vis the other categories simply doesn't apply to
Category:African-American child actors. Again, it is NOT a "bottom rung category by ethnicity", and should not have been lumped in with those other categories in the first place.
Cgingold (
talk)
12:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment This was actually split off from the rest of the debate after most if not all the comment there, so it seems logical to assume most people in the other debate favor upmerging this category as well.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I posted my emphatic request to split these off from the larger CFD immediately. In other words, those editors were put on notice that these categories were going to be split off, so it seems logical to assume that they were not indicating any opinion one way or the other. Regardless, your inclusion of these categories in the larger group nom was, shall we say, fatally flawed, because -- as I have already explained -- they are not fully comparable to those other categories, and therefore cannot validly be grouped together with them for a CFD discussion.
Cgingold (
talk)
14:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Actually splitting off a nomination after the fact is a highly unusual action, and in general is considered bad form. No one else has supported you in your single-handed claims that this sub-category is so different it should be considered differently.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, it was unusual -- and not undertaken lightly, JPL. But I did make my concerns known immediately -- and requested that you, as nominator, separate these categories from the group nom. However, you completely ignored my request, leaving me no choice but to take care of it myself. It was not an unreasonable request, and certainly not frivolous, so most nominators would have obliged in the spirit of fairness and collegiality. I hope that hasn't gone completely by the boards here at CFD.
Cgingold (
talk)
11:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Hmmm... I think we should compare our differing understandings of what "bottom-rung" means, OWK. As I did my best to explain above,
Category:African-American child actors does not constitute a "bottom-rung" category, because it's not, in fact, the "bottom-rung".
Category:African-American child actresses, on the other hand -- along with its missing counterpart,
Category:African-American male child actors -- ARE/would be "bottom-rung" categories, because they entail a further intersection by gender -- and that is why I support upmerging it as proposed. Please explain where you see things differently than what I've laid out here.
Cgingold (
talk)
08:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The ERGS rules suggest that other ERGS divisions do not end the bottom rung rule. Thus, a category being further divided by ethnicity does not mean that it is acceptable to also further divide it by sex, even though technically the ethnicity divisions mean we no longer have sex as the only acceptable divisions. As I have argued elsewhere, in singing and acting sex is so central and controlling to peoples careers that it makes sense to divide as low as possible. For example, in singing, one very specific way to divide people is by voice type, and this is a sub-division of by sex. Altos and sopranos are subdivisions of women singers.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:46, 27 August 2013 (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.
African-American film actors
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.
Nominator's rationale Basically this division goes against do not make last-rung divisions by ethnicity. So some will ask "why divide by gender and not by ethnicity". The reason, gender is a controlling, defining characteristic in acting, ethnicity is not. How do I know. 1-the academy awards have specific actor and actress categories, they do not have "white actor", "black actor" and "Asian actor" categories. 2-with very, very few exceptions people will be cast in their actual gender. I can name lots of cases where people have been cast as a different ethnicity, including a recent case where a black Canadian actresses was cast as an Armenian-American. 3-closely related to this, when casting actors as aliens, ethnicity is not controlling, thus the partly Asian-American Dean Cain can be cast as Superman, but no one has ever cast a woman as Superman. 4-characters can undergo change of race without much change of the character, change of gender is another story. Thus, in the recent film "Man of Steel" Perry White was cast with an African-American actor, all previous castings had been with Euro-American actors, but the character was still largely the same. So it makes sense to split at all levels by gender, while there is no good reason to subdivide beyond the top level by ethnicity.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Another issue is that these are supposed to be non-diffusing subcategories, but an actual look at how they are used shows they have in general been diffused. However with so many actors having acted on television, film and stage, that would put an African American actor in 6 categories just from that, while if we do the upmerge we get 4 categories. It has been nearly 40 years since Guess Who's Coming To Dinner, ethnicity is a consideration in casting, but we can find television shows where they seem to have recast a character as a different race within the same season (Season 1 of Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman they recast Bill Henderson from an African-American actor to a Euro-American actor, although maybe there are two police offices in Metropolis Police Department named Bill Henderson, such is believable in a city of 12 million), and that was nearly 20 years ago. Yes, ethnicity matters, which is why we have
Category:African-American actors, but not enough to categorize at every level.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment Probably the most noted African-American voice actor is
James Earl Jones, for the role of
Darth Vader. Not only is that role playing a character who is the father of two characters played by Euro-Americans, but the actors playing Vader were all of European descent, just with Jones voice added in. Although admitedly voice acting also has a high rate of females voicing male roles (although mostly children), so the gender lines are less clear there, but ethnicity is largely not connected to the character at all (especially when lots of voiced characters are not even human).
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose upmerging of
Category:African-American child actors. I am reserving judgement for now on the other categories, but this one needs to be separated out and considered on its own merits, rather than being thrown in with a group nom for a whole slew of categories that are differentiated on the basis of which medium is involved -- an issue that has nothing to do with this particular category. Please split this one off without delay, JPL. Thank you.
Cgingold (
talk)
16:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I really don't know how I could say it any more clearly, JPL. I am opposed to upmerging
Category:African-American child actors. Period. And to repeat, it should not be lumped in with the other categories in this group nom, as I have already explained. If you won't remove it and list it separately, then I suppose I will have to do it myself.
Cgingold (
talk)
07:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - With just a quick look through I've already spotted a number of errors in the upmerge targets that need to be corrected, JPL. Please go through them line by line and take care of those mistakes ASAP. Thanks again.
Cgingold (
talk)
16:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I am really sick of reading this kind of garbage from you, Carlossuarez. All these years and you've never let up. Disgraceful. Please strike your remarks forthwith, or I will have no choice but to make a formal request for censure.
Cgingold (
talk)
07:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)reply
You may call it garbage and disgraceful, but categorization based on race is garbage and disgraceful. I will not strike through my comments; nor will I knuckle under to your intimidation and will continue to oppose racial categorization of people.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Oh, please -- "intimidation" my ass, Carlossuarez. You are -- of course -- perfectly free to "continue to oppose racial categorization of people". That is NOT the issue, and I am quite sure you know that. The issue is your outrageous characterization of people such as myself -- and yes, I took it as a personal attack -- who support such categories, as "oddballs" who subscribe to the appalling notion that "African-Americans are less than Americans". That kind of verbiage is patently offensive -- and just plain unacceptable here on Wikipedia, as you surely know, Carlossuarez. So I will give you one more opportunity to strike through those remarks, in sincere hopes of avoiding formal proceedings.
Cgingold (
talk)
10:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. If you see yourself in such a way that the term "oddballs" offends you, you're sensitivities are probably at too low a threshold to participate in lively active debate on controversial topics; but again, it wasn't directed to you. You are part of the Wikipedia problem, which any reasonable editor of as long standing as you would rationally have concluded. I have no clue what you feel inwardly, only what you write on Wikipedia. Moreover, you have nowhere answered the objective question required to maintain race-based categories which I've posted on your talk page and repost here:
See
Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#General which says as point #1:::: "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. [¶] For example, most sportspeople should not be categorized by religion, since e.g. being Catholic or Protestant is not relevant to the way they perform in sports." In what way do you contend that a child actor's race or ethnicity is relevant to the way they perform in acting? Without answering that preliminary question satisfactorily as shown by reliable sources, any defense of such categories is suspect. No one has posited an answer.
And still we're awaiting an answer. And whilst you consider that, keep in mind
WP:COP#N, we categorize people only based on what makes them notable. Are you arguing that these categorizes do so? And while you mull "formal proceedings", remember
WP:NLT and the chilling effect you no doubt hope your threats will cause.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
16:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)reply
It is really quite extraordinary that you, as an admin (or so it says on your user page), seem to have no awareness or real comprehension of the core issue here -- and how a mature and responsible editor would ordinarily respond. Let me lay this out clearly:
The vast majority of editors would not have made a gratuitously offensive personal attack such as you made above in the first place.
Having had the offensive remark brought to their attention, along with a request to strike thru said remark, it has been my experience/observation that the vast majority of editors quickly acknowledge the error/offense and strike thru the offending passage. In contrast, rather than taking that simple and expedient step -- which would have ended things then and there -- you chose to go on the attack, compounding the original offense with the ludicrous accusation that I was trying to "intimidate" you.
Even after I elaborated on how your remark was an offensive and unacceptable personal attack, and made another request for you to strike thru the offending passage, you adamantly refused to acknowledge the offensiveness of the remark and ignored my entreaties to resolve the matter by striking thru the offending passage. With what I can only describe as willful obtuseness, you pretended to believe that it was merely the use of the term "oddballs" that I took offense at, when I had made it quite clear that it was (as I said above) "your outrageous characterization of people such as myself... who support such categories as 'oddballs' who subscribe to the appalling notion that 'African-Americans are less than Americans' ". If you truly do not comprehend why that is a patently offensive personal attack, I really don't know what to say.... I am simply dumbfounded.
Finally, just so there was no doubt about how far off the track your entire response has been, you jumped into the deep end by accusing me of making "threats" -- and invoking "
WP:NLT", of all things. I hardly know whether to laugh or scream. It seems to have escaped your notice that
WP:NLT, AKA "Make No Legal Threats", is entirely focused on the issue of editors who threaten to take legal action in the real world -- which is absolutely distinct from any of the "formal proceedings" that take place here on Wikipedia.
In closing: When I said that I would "have no choice but to make a formal request for censure", I was of course referring to your violation of
Wikipedia:No personal attacks, which was further compounded by your refusal to take the simple ameliorative step of striking thru the remark in question. At this point I will give you one more opportunity to take that simple step. It's your choice. I really do hope you will choose wisely, Carlossuarez, so that we can both avoid the bother of "formal proceedings".
Cgingold (
talk)
10:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)reply
There is no personal attack. Your comments are little more than drama, because you cannot defend the existence of these categories. Go running to whatever you want. I will not strike my !vote no matter how much you intimidate me. Moreover, if you found it so offensive and were sure the community viewed it as you do, you'd have stricken it and see whether you were right or were just posturing to chill debate. You haven't so you've proven my point.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
15:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. However I would question whether we should be categorising actors accoring to the genre in which they perform. Actors will commonly at differnet stages in theri careers perform in soaps, films, TV, musicals, etc.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Genre would be if we categorized people as acting in westerns. Although we actually do have a category for that. This is something more notable than that. There are lots of actors who only appeared in film, although the overlap of film and television is pretty high for any actor whose career goes past 1950, and the overlap of film and stage is high as well. It is also true that lots of people the article says "Jane Sorel was a film, stage and television actress" in the first sentence, but they are only in the film category at present.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)reply
On the other hand, there are lots of people who have played the same role on both television and film, or on both stage and film. Star Trek is the most notable example of the first, although
Don Adams comes to mind. Keeping on the Adams theme, then we have
Amy Adams who had a role in both
Smallville a TV show related to Superman, and in
Man of Steel a film about Superman, although the Adams case is a bit different, because it was not the same role. What do we do with people who acted in a made-for TV movie, are they film actors, television actors, or both?
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Note - None of the categories listed above were provided with correct links to the proper CFD section; if it was my own CFD nom I would happily take care of it, but it's not, so I will leave it for the nominator to decide whether or not to bother with this.
Cgingold (
talk)
09:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)reply
upmerge per nom. We don't need these fine divisions. dual-categorization as "type-of-actor" and "african-american-actor" is largely sufficient. otherwise these would tend to ghettoize.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
15:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment If this is still open for debate, I think it's important to note ethnicity and gender but specific aspects of their occupation (film actress, television actress, stage actress, voice actress, etc.) is less crucial. I can see someone wanting to see who is in Chinese-American actresses category but not, specially, Chinese-American soap opera actresses category. Since, in this example, the actress would also be in the American actresses category, I think that the Chinese-American actresses serves to identify actors, not ghettoize them.
So, I guess that makes me Oppose unless you are considering merging all acting mediums into simply "actors/actresses".
P.S. Yes, I realize that I didn't use "African-American" as an example (even though they are the categories under discussion) because I honestly think it is desirable and useful to categorize actors by ethnic heritage. If not, why do we have categories for Jewish-American actors and Puerto Rican actors? The really ridiculous categories are "Actor from state"...what possible purpose does it serve to know an actor is from North Carolina or Ohio?
LizRead!Talk!17:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Hmm actually it looks like all these categories have been further sub-divided while under discussion. This is making everything a big mess. I don't think it is a good idea. Due to ERGS rules, that will mean people will have to be in both
Category:American male stage actors and
Category:African-American male stage actors. Considering how many people are stage, film, and televion actors, this will put lots of people in 6 categories where if we upmerged they would only be in 4 categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:21, 11 September 2013 (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:Antimycotics for systemic use
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.
Nominator's rationale: - THIS CAN BE SPEEDIED. - Empty/unused/uneeded category, per remarks of category creator. (See below)
Cgingold (
talk)
10:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)reply
From the creator's talk page (in response to my inquiry): "There is an old
WP:PHARM consensus that the category scheme for pharmaceuticals should be based on
ATC codes, only we couldn't agree on how deep the structure should be. This category would correspond to
ATC code J02. As it doesn't look like the discussion will be revived any time soon (as far as I can tell – I haven't been following what's going on here for weeks), I suppose the category can be deleted without harm. Cheers, User:Anypodetos" [emphasis added]
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:Sean Hannity
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.
Keep Per
WP:CLN, categories, lists and navigation templates are intended to exist in synergistic fashion. Categories here not only allow for navigation by a rather clear defining characteristic, but also allow for integration into the remainder of the category system.
Alansohn (
talk)
14:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep per Alansohn. These pages are grouped by a clearly defining characteristic, so they have a good and valid reason to exist. Per
WP:CLN, the existence of a category is not dependent on the existence (or absence) of a list or navbox, so the nominator's rationale is misplaced. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - amounts to "TV shows that starred Sean Hannity" and while categories can exist where templates also do they don't have to exist. The material here is in no way so intricate or complex that the lead article all by itself doesn't serve as proper navigation; in fact, the bulk of the category topics are linked in the introductory paragraph.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk)
20:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)reply
It's a small category with little or no growth potential. It's an unnecessary eponymous category. It's functioning as basically nothing other than a category for TV shows starring Sean Hannity. Anyone looking for information on Sean Hannity is going to type in
Sean Hannity and find all of these articles within three sentences. You haven't provided any particularly compelling reason why this category should exist.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk)
13:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The reason it should stay is that it groups together a number of articles (plus a subcat) of which Hannity is the most defining characteristic. The fact that other navigational tools exist is irrelevant. When I made my keep !vote above it contained 9 pages, which is quite big enough; you didn't disclose that you had moved 3 articles (
[1][2][3]) to a new
Category:Books by Sean Hannity. That new categ is quite valid, but should have been made a subcat of the category under discussion, so I have done that. It now contains 5 articles plus a template plus a subcat, which is plenty big enough to keep; and since Hannity's career continues to thrive, I'm sure that it will expand. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Your premise is entirely wrong. First, please read
WP:CAT#Overview. This category meets the objective of allowing navigation through articles which share a common defining characteristic. This is not a TV-shows category; it also includes the books, which are now in a subcategory. Nor is it a "shows starring Hannity" category, because (unlike Messing) Hannity is not an actor. The shows in question exist solely as vehicles for Hannity, which is not case for Messing's acting parts. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:20, 13 August 2013 (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:Wikipedians who use Gmail
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.
Nominator's rationale: This
user category does not group users on the basis of any
ability, knowledge, interest, or other characteristic that is relevant or useful to encyclopedic coordination and collaboration.
Gmail is "the most widely used web-based email provider" and using it requires no special set of skills that would justify creating a grouping of users. In fact, the category's existence basically is incidental to transclusions of {{
User:UBX/Gmail}}, to which the category code was added. The userbox more than suffices to provide notice of a user's email preference, and there is no value in a category that serves as nothing more than a bottom-of-the-page notice. -- Black Falcon(
talk)05:55, 9 August 2013 (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:Active extraterrestrial probes
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. I'm basically only dealing with the use of active in the category name here. I think the comments made by
WDGraham should be considered when determining the next step. This merge does not mean that there should not be any cleanup or further nominations, which are allowed.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
01:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: We normally avoid categorizing things as being (currently) active as it's not a permanent characteristic and hence will become incorrect if the categorization is not updated. After merge the text at
Category:Extraterrestrial probes should be changed.
DexDor (
talk)
04:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)reply
RenameCategory:Space probes; I see no strong evidence for "extraterrestrial" to be limited as beyond Earth-Luna orbit. I think the most common one is the Ufology one: anywhere out there where little green (or gray) men come from. So "extraterrestrial probes" seems to mean UFO probes,in common usage. In scientific usage (from the Latin, "extra" is out of and "terrestrial" is "pertaining to the earth (Terra)", so Luna (the moon) is extraterrestrial and so are all the gizmos in orbit around the earth, too, until they Skylab in on us.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
18:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete the whole lot - we already have categories which sort these by destination and type - for example
Akatsuki (spacecraft) is in
Category:Missions to Venus.
Category:Extraterrestrial probes is a holding category for the three "by status" categories (active, inactive, destroyed) which don't really add an awful lot. I say just get rid of the lot and use the other categories that are already on the pages. Merging would serve little purpose since better subcategories are already on most/all of the pages. --W.D.Graham16:30, 11 August 2013 (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:Nada novel in Basque
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.
Speedy delete -- This appears to be an article in a foreign language (Basque?) sitting in category space. If this should exist anywhere it should be in the Basque WP.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
20:00, 10 August 2013 (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:Janet Heidinger Kafka Prize winners
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 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:Mediterranean Games host cities
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.
Oppose. I believe that the cat serves the purpose stated in
Wikipedia:Categorization#Overview. Besides, in WP there are well over 1000 cities-categories including such diverse subjects as “Port cities in ...”, “Cities in fiction”, “Imperial free cities”, "Populated places on the (river sea or lake)", ”European capitals of sports”, "Members of the Hanseatic League” , “...border cities”, etc etc.. Well Cat: Mediterranean Games host cities is no less notable or no less Wiki-like than those.
Nedim Ardoğa (
talk)
09:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The "Capitals of Sport" category is
currently at CFD. The other categories you mention (e.g.
Category:Port cities) may have a much stronger claim to be permanent defining characteristics (e.g. the characteristic is likely to be mentioned in the lead of articles) than that the city once hosted a sporting event.
DexDor (
talk)
20:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per the nominator's rationale. Hosting a sporting event is a transient characteristic of most cities, and the MedGames is not significant enough to be defining for the city. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:49, 9 August 2013 (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.