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:Delete. This is not categorizing women who worked for Columbia University; it is categorizing (two) women who are alumni of Columbia University. Surely we do not want to start categorizing women alumni of certain universities as "FOO University women"!
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
delete as well as the parent. There is nothing defining about being a woman and graduating from Columbia, I would venture more than 50% of the students are women these days.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
01:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Columbia University is a unique case, because it has
Barnard College which is a constituent women's college, put not all female students at Columbia are part of Barnard. We can and do classify people for being connected to Barnard, but there is no reason to split this category by gender. We do not want to start splitting university categories by gender.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete -- I hope that Columbia Univiersity is a non-discriminating institution. If this is about alumni, I do not see why we should need it. Oxford and Cambidge both have women's colleges, but that is not an excuse for splitting alumni by gender. They also now have mixed colleges.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:36, 1 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:Individual antennas
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:Our Miracle
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:Animated television programs
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: They serve as duplicate categories. If you look at
Category:Television series by genre, you'll see that it is more common to call a television show a "series" rather than a "program". In general, it would be nice to standardize television listings which are called "programs", "series" and "shows", rather interchangeably. Single programs are called "episodes" or "specials" so "programs" shouldn't be used for that category either.
LizRead!Talk!21:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The problem is
WP:ENGVAR which makes standardiz/sation problematic. "Series" in British English is the equivalent of "season" in American and then there's "program" vs. "programme". The solution may be to make the highest level container categories "programming" and then break everything within it by country based on which version of English they use (with American English IMHO becoming the default if there's no national preference since the project is based in the U.S.). So
Category:Animated television programming as the container with
Category:American animated television series and
Category:British animated television programmes among the constituents (except that the existing structure is
Category:British animated television series so what the hell, England?!). Implementing a change like that should however be the subject of a much farther reaching discussion than a single CFD. For this one instance, I say merge per nom, recognizing that the nomination does reflect some small level of
WP:BIAS toward American English.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk)
00:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose as nominated. At present this is a proposal to merge a parent category to a child category. I am not sure we really know what is going on with series, programs, programming, and what ever other words are applied, but this merger will not solve any problems.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
23:19, 8 January 2014 (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:Princess Leia
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:Delete. As with the
recently deleted R2-D2 category, all the same reasons for deletion apply. Small category whose only growth potential comes from adding general articles for things in which the character appears. There are plenty of other categories, lists and templates for the contents that aren't problematic.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk)
17:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I don't have anything against Star Wars (well, except the prequels) but it's an area that attracts a lot of material that, while hella cool and all, isn't encyclopedic.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk)
00:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep All of the articles are either about or directly related to the character. It may be useful to setup a subcategory of images, but that only adds to the size and scope of this parent. With new films in the Star Wars series on the way, a seemingly never-ending supply of ancillary material and content related to specific characters and a dedicated fan base, the potential for growth seems to be unlimited.
Alansohn (
talk)
18:21, 25 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:Linux kernel hackers
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:C Sharp developers
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.
Tintin
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.
If that is the case, then please change all of them to this format, not some of them. Surely you can see the inconsistency you are proposing above. I suggest the following:
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 surgeons
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 to Category:African-American physicians. There is evident consensus to merge and all those who would merge agree on at least the target I've indicated. I do not see that there is immediate convergence on the double merge, however. -
Splash -
tk19:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Violates the last-rung rule of
WP:EGRS; as such this category would have a tendency to isolate African-American surgeons from their peers, as there aren't any other significant diffusing categories under
Category:American surgeons. I understand that African-American surgeons are discussed as a group; however, one could make a similar argument for many medical specialties + ethnicity, even within surgical specialties. As such I think tracking this at the level of "African-American physicians", which could always be intersected with "American surgeons" will provide researchers with what they need while limiting the risk of ghettoization.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
15:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep As a defining characteristic that is an appropriate and effective aid to navigation. Researchers may well be willing and able to determine the intersection of various categories using tools to perform this task, but the loss of this defining characteristic harms navigation for the billions of non-researchers who use this encyclopedia. The note in the category's heading specifically indicates that every entry in this category "should also be placed in a neutral sibling or parent", which addresses the nominator's perceived concerns re "ghettoization".
Alansohn (
talk)
18:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The last-rung rule is there to prevent structural ghettoization; if there are many other sibling categories (e.g. a whole set of categories of surgeons-by-state, or surgeons-by-speciality that is fully diffusing), then it's likely any particular surgeon will be in one of those as well. If the only way to deghettoize is to simply stick them in the parent, this is not likely to happen (and people will come along and remove the parent as a dupe). Having looked at hundreds of categories, the ones that violate last-rung-rule are almost always ghettoes, whether we label them to try to avoid it or not. The best solution is to delete.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk)
21:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge Here the last rung rule should trump. Splitting to African-American physicians is enough. We do not need to further split by speciality. Category heading notes do not really help, because people do not have to read them before adding to the category. Anyway, the specific intersection of being a surgeon (as opposed to being a physician in general) and being African-American is not really that notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
21:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per JPL. As Alanasohn notes, external intersection might as well not exist for most readers, and their availability to the congnoscenti is irrelevant to our decision here. However, the no-ghettoisation principle of
WP:CATGRS is an important one, and should be upheld. JPL is right to note that category heading notes are of little help in avoiding that, because non-diffusing subcats are so rare that the vast majority of sub-categorisation on the principle of diffusion using tools such a
WP:HotCat which don't warn editors of non-diffusion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:09, 4 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:Republicanism in Thailand
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. The two keep arguments are convincingly strong, and tip the balance away from 'no consensus'. -
Splash -
tk20:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Neither of this category's member articles discusses the issue in detail. The Lèse majesté article doesn't even contain the term, while the mention in the UDD article is descriptive of attacks by its opponents, and doesn't warrant categorisation. There may or may not be republican movements in Thailand, but as it is unconstitutional and criminal, it is unlikely that reliable sources would be available for a proper Wikipedia article any time soon.
Paul_012 (
talk)
15:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose, I agree that the two articles included had nothing to do with "Republicanism in Thailand", so I removed them, but I still think that this category should be kept around, because there were and are republican movements in Thailand, just because they're illegal dosn't mean they're not there (
Colombian guerrilla movements are also illegal but they have their own category.
Charles Essie (
talk)
21:44, 10 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:Recipients of the King Rama IX Coronation Medal
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:Prehistoric Perciformes stubs
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:Winners of the Nykredit Architecture Prize
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 Pre-eminent awards (either nationally or internationally) are defining for the individuals/corporations who receive them and could reasonably be expected to be referred to whenever the individual or company's achievements are mentioned in professional or historical narratives. The Nykredit Architecture Prize is a pre-eminent award in the field (one of the top architecture awards in Denmark and one of the most lucrative architecture awards globally). The categorisation under 'People by Status' has three separate intervening categories, all of which do not discriminate between individual award winners and corporate award winners; the issue in this respect is the assumption that all
Category:Award winners are people - this is a much wider taxonomy issue than whether
Category:Winners of the Nykredit Architecture Prize has a mix of corporate and individual winners and should be raised (separately) for discussion as such. Arguing lists are better is irrelevant per
WP:CLN - lists and categories are both valid and have different advantages and disadvantages; from extensive experience in maintaining both, article editors don't always added their subjects to the appropriate lists (nor for that matter to the appropriate catgegories!) - checking out new additions to categories can be a useful starting point for updating lists and vice versa. I note that the broader debate surrounding
WP:OC#AWARD is essentially an
Inclusionism vs
Deletionism debate and this renewed push for deletion advances no substantively new arguments compared to the original CfD which resulted in a Keep decision. This nomination is being pushed by active participants in the current rehash of the debate of
WP:OC#AWARD at least one of whom has a
stated agenda to abolish all award categories - a position which has not achieved consensus support in the four years I have witnessed it repeatedly re-raised (and is unlikely to so long as both inclusionist and deletionist editors still have the emotional energy left to keep entering the fray). Had I been aware of the CfD example cited, I would have defended that article on the same grounds. I am sympathetic to concerns about category clutter (which seems to be the underlying issue for many in the OC#AWARD debate), in practice that is unlikely to be a significant issue for the majority of architect/architectural company articles; in any case, this concern should be dealt with by a technical fix (collapsible category groups or similar - a suggestion I have previously provided). Whilst
John Pack Lambert argues that it is 'another award category we do not need', this is presumptuous about how others use categories; the category traffic stats show steady usage of the category page (after allowing for the CfD generated spike), the numbers may not be high but that is consistent for non-mainstream subjects.
AusTerrapin (
talk)
17:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete categories like this lead to clutter and thus are likely to be more distracting than useful. Overall the whole architecture topic on Wikipedia suffers from overemphasis on awards, often pushed into leads and infoboxes, and cluttering the categories section.--
ELEKHHT20:20, 30 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:Recipients of the Order of Duke Branimir
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: What awards a person has received is not normally a
WP:DEFINING characteristic and/or not a good way to categorize WP articles (see
WP:OC#AWARD). The two articles currently in this category are in plenty of categories for what the people did. For info: The people with articles in the category are listed at
Order of Duke Branimir.
DexDor (
talk)
06:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - I believe that since it is a rare award it would be handy to list people who have been granted it. Since there has been a precedent for this elsewhere on the site, I believe it should stay.
Hotspur23 (
talk) 06:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC) (added from category's talk page)
AusTerrapin (
talk)
12:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep - This a state order. It has been common practice since 2004 for state orders and decorations to have an associated category or categories (where category diffusion has been applied) - see for example
Knights of the Garter history. This does not usually apply to medals (unless they are a decoration issued in the 'form factor' of a medal - eg the
Medal for Gallantry is a decoration issued in the shape of a medal rather than a star, cross, etc). Consensus has never been achieved to cease this practice. Per
WP:CLN the fact that the two recipients currently listed in the category are also listed in the article is irrelevant. The fact that this order is awarded to non-citizens is irrelevant - no policy has ever been developed that renders categories legitimate or illegitimate based on whether they are for citizens, non-citizens or both citizens and non-citizens (as an aside, given the earlier argument from Peterkingiron was not clear on who this order is open to, both Croatian citizens and non-citizens can be appointed to the Order of Duke Branimir - the limited foreign langauge sources I found have many more awards being made to Croatians than non-Croatians, but this search was far from exhaustive).
AusTerrapin (
talk)
13:49, 17 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:The Helix (Dublin)
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:Pencil work by Indian artists
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:2000s pencil sketch
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 - one of several categories created for the single article. The breakdown of drawings by decade or individual year is a bit silly given the contents so I see no reason for a rename.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk)
03:08, 25 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:Pramod Kamble
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:Films with Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet
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 -- We do not like performance categories. Even if we kept it (which we should not), it ought to be split, as this is a triple intersection.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:50, 1 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.
Clergy in America
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: We categorize
people of the Americas only at the highest level, subdividing between North, Central, and South Americans, and sometimes into Latin American and Caribbean. In the absence of a category structure for people of the Americas by occupation, which would provide no added navigational value in my opinion, creating a structure of clergy in the Americas is premature. (Category creator notified using
Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon(
talk)01:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I don't understand the rationale. Please explain in more detail. I see
Category:Musicians by continent and
Category:Writers by continent. Each has a category for its relevant continent. So you have musician and writers in America. Is this not a "category structure for people of the Americas by occupation"? The bishops are categorised by diocese, which guarantees that their place of work is in that continent, not that have to be nationals within that continent (although the two usually coincide). In the case of the Anglican bishops, you have sub-divisions by north, south and caribbean America. What's the problem here?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
20:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
That's just it, though... we don't have musicians and writers in/of the Americas. We have, instead, separate categories for the continents of North and South America. The
Americas are not typically considered a single continent; instead, the name applies to the continents of North and South America. The reason that there is no advantage in creating a category structure for the Americas is that such a structure merely would serve as a parent to corresponding categories for North and South America. -- Black Falcon(
talk)04:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep These are valid occupational categories. If you look at other professional categories, you'll see similar ones. "Category: Occupation + Location" is valid. And please do not suggest
Category:American Roman Catholic clergy as 24% of Roman Catholic priests are not born in the U.S., they are are not "American", they just minister in the U.S., sometimes for decades.
LizRead!Talk!21:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I think you've misunderstood the scope of these categories. They are not categories for clergy in the United States or American clergy, but for clergy in the
Americas (i.e., North and South America). -- Black Falcon(
talk)04:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The comments above do not address the substance of the nomination. We don't need group people by occupation at the level of "the Americas" generally—and certainly not before it is done for North America and South America.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Based on the nominator's clarification, I can now support the proposal, though without prejudice to creating similar categories for North & South America as appropriate.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
21:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This contains two empty categories for Argenina and Peru and an apparently small US category. This makes me think that the US one must be duplicating some other well-populated category. There must be an appropriate merge target somewhere.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:55, 1 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.