Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 23 November 25 >

November 24

Category:Sexual elements in fiction

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 per WP:CSD#G7 (author request). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationla: despite the tile, the category doesn't actually list…well, "sexual elements of fiction". It makes more sense to title it as a category of works of fiction with sexual elements involved. Otherwise, you can consider this category for deletion. — 017Bluefield ( talk) 22:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the response. Delete as overly broad, non-defining and subjective. There's simply too much fiction that includes "sexually explicit content" and what constitutes sexually explicit differs from one person to the next. This feels kind of like categorizing based on ratings like the MPAA issues or that a v-chip might react to. I get the idea but the category is too problematic. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 06:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Deleted. You don't need to add a deletion tag if you want an author-requested deletion; just make it clear to an admin that you want it to be deleted. Your comments here are quite sufficient. Nyttend ( talk) 17:40, 11 December 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:Rivers and Lakes of Missoula County, Montana

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. Wizardman 04:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: We should not combine categories for rivers and lakes, especially when we exclude other bodies of water. The category should be split into separate ones for rivers and lakes, which could be placed into the existing category tree for Rivers of the United States by county and, possibly, one that could be created for Lakes of the United States by county; alternatively, the lakes could be upmerged until there is a category structure in place for them. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:43, 24 November 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:Spacecraft Sea Launch Platforms

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category contains a mix of topics (a launch service provider, two launch platforms, and three launch vehicles) related to maritime space launches. Our options, therefore, are to delete the category and allow its contents to fall into the existing category structure for spaceflight and spacecraft, or to rename it in such a way that it is clearly identified as a topic category for sea-to-orbit launches. The phrase "sea launch to orbit" mirrors Category:Air launch to orbit and, though it is not very common at all, has been used. For example: " No government had ever attempted a sea launch to orbit; the notion was considered too risky and technically daunting." (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:13, 24 November 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:Weapon Locating Radar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Correct capitalisation. Other options might be Category:Weapon locating radars or Category:Counter-battery radar (to match the article at Counter-battery radar). DexDor ( talk) 19:57, 24 November 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 Americans' rights activists

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:African-Americans' civil rights activists. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The current title does not reflect the actual scope of the category, which is people who were activists for the civil rights of African Americans. Technically, it suggests that the category contains African activists for Americans' rights. The standard naming convention for categories of activists by issue is Foo activists (e.g., Category:Anti-racism activists, Category:Minority rights activists). The challenge is that it can be difficult to differentiate between a category of activists for the civil rights of African Americans (issue) and one of civil rights activists who are African American (identity)—see Category:African-American activists.
I think that the proposed titles are less ambiguous as they clearly focus on the activism issue and not the activists' identity. I considered but do not support a third option, Category:Activists for African-American civil rights, since the focus is "the civil rights of African Americans" and not (as suggested by this third option) "civil rights which are (somehow) African American". (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment In that case Category:Activists for Hispanic and Latino American civil rights needs to be renamed too. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:05, 24 November 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:Ig Nobel 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 result of the discussion was: delete. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: We normally categorize articles by characteristics of the subject of the article, not by what awards the subject (e.g. a person) has received (see WP:OC#AWARD). For most of the recipients of this particular award it is not mentioned prominently in the article and in many it is not mentioned at all ( some examples) - so it is hardly a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Another problem with this category is that it places articles about organizations (e.g. IP Australia) and concepts (e.g. Administratium) under Category:People by status which is incorrect. For info: There is a list at List of Ig Nobel Prize winners. For info: This category was CFDed in 2007 with a no-consensus result. FWIW, I'm a fan of the awards; I just don't think it's a suitable characteristic to categorize WP articles by. If the category is kept, those articles that don't mention this award should be removed from it (note: normally we only categorize by characteristics of the subject that could not reasonably be removed from the text of the article). DexDor ( talk) 16:48, 24 November 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:The Beat 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: rename. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename to disambiguate and distinguish this from Category:The Beat (American band) albums. Although the main article is so far at The Beat (band) and there is merely a new redirect at The Beat (British band), categories should be less ambiguous than articles. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:19, 24 November 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:Former bishops

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. All of the arguments for merging do not take into account the fact that the articles are already in a very specific bishop category of the tree so placing them at the top level would be an error. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Being a bishop is a defining characteristic; no longer being a bishop is not defining. Is a bishop emeritus a former bishop? Is a dead bishop a former bishop? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:10, 24 November 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:Major League Baseball free agents

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. Wizardman 03:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Being a free agent is not a defining characteristic. In fact, it's quite transitory, as most of these individuals will sign contracts between now and February, and would no longer belong in this category. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:55, 24 November 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:British Trust for Ornithology medallists

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 all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD. Having won an award is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic and/or is not a good way to categorize people. I've checked a sample of the articles in these category and all are in a more appropriate category (e.g. Category:English ornithologists). For info: There are lists which provide a much more comprehensive list of the medallists. DexDor ( talk) 14:03, 24 November 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.

Austria youth international footballers

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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Same reason as the previous two. It's almost like we're overcategorizing a list of footballers from the U-20 int. level and below. – Michael ( talk) 06:37, 24 November 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.

Netherlands youth international footballers

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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Same reason as the Algerian U17/U20 templates. – Michael ( talk) 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael ( talk) 01:02, 24 November 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.

Algeria youth international footballers

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 all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. per discussion a week and a half ago with Croatia. This shouldn't be any different. – Michael ( talk) 00:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael ( talk) 00:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I disagree for Category:Algeria under-20 international footballers. Algeria national under-20 football team is the top youth team in Algeria (like England national under-21 football team for England). If you delete that category you have to delete all the categories on Category:Association football players by under-21 national team and Category:Association football players by under-20 national team. Xaris333 ( talk) 01:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply

No I don't have to delete any of the under-21 categories and I am planning on merging all categories from under-20 and below. Regardless of the fact that Algeria U-20 is the top youth team, consensus is quite clear that all footballers who represented their country in the under-20 level or below (which for this discussion would be Algeria) should be listed under Category:Algeria youth international footballers. – Michael ( talk) 01:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Nominator comment - A month ago on that Croatia discussion I should say. – Michael ( talk) 01:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't get that. I know the U20 cat the top level category, but if you keep it, that's going to create some confusion with the editors. You know, making them think that there should be U20 categories for the European national youth teams. – Michael ( talk) 18:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There's absolutely no reason to do this. Each article is completely independent and has its own page, what is the justification to combine their respective categories? Why not add the senior international footballers category as well? Sorry to say but this is absolutely pointless recommendation in my opinion and does not help in any way. How is a user supposed to figure out who is a U17 international? What added benefit does a "youth international footballers" category add? Completely against and I really hope other members reconsider this position. TonyStarks ( talk) 19:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
If this was a pointless recommendation, I wouldn't be wasting my time nominating these categories for merging. And we have a category for senior international footballers. See Category:Algeria international footballers. – Michael ( talk) 19:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Just because you're doing it doesn't make it any less pointless. TonyStarks ( talk) 03:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Just to add to my previous post, at WP:CLN, it says the following: "A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no": 1. Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it? 2. If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?" In both cases, the answer is yes, therefore based on Wikipedia policy there is no justification to merge those two categories into the Youth international ones. Those two articles should be sub-categories of the Youth international football one, as things currently are right now .. but as usual, we always have editors that need to over-complicate everything. TonyStarks ( talk) 03:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply

So you are saying that:

This is absurd... Xaris333 ( talk) 20:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Merge U17, keep U20. Standard policy is to only have the (major) top youth international level for a given country with its own category, and all other youth levels to be grouped together. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • What is the logic behind this standard policy? As far as I know, every page is allowed to have a matching category to go along with it. Why are we making an exception here? Why not combine articles in that case? Also, what relation does a U20 Algerian international and a U17 Algerian international have in common? TonyStarks ( talk) 03:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • It's standard policy because the minor youth levels (which is generally all bar U21; some places have U20 as their top level) are very rarely a defining characteristic of notability. Media coverage of the U21 level is generally higher than all lower levels put together. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
According to WP:CLN, your reasoning simply does not apply categories and as such, there is absolutely no justification to make this move. TonyStarks ( talk) 20:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
It's not standard policy if it goes against Wikipedia policy and if you have people such as myself that think it makes absolutely no sense to do. TonyStarks ( talk) 02:17, 26 November 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_24&oldid=1090391284"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE