Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 25

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fellows of the British-American Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Essentially this is categorisation by membership of an organisation, and I don't think being a fellow of the British-American Project is sufficiently defining to be worth a category. Becoming a fellow mainly involves attending a conference, and apparently there are around 600 of them. Robofish (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete membership in this organization is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2012 (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 and sort out contents afterwards. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is split into two parts, as there's two 'source' category name sets. One deviates more than the other - and could, in fact, almost be speedied - while the second contains categories, while not in the wrong naming format like the first set, would look odd in their primary trees after the renaming of the first set, if not also renamed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Renmae to match category trees. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Might be worth mentioning that a few of the films in Category:Hanna-Barbera films are live-action films contributed to by Hanna-Barbera and often based on Hanna-Barbera properties (e. g. The Flintstones (film), The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas, and The Gathering (1977 film)). —{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 03:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • In that case, once the move proposed is made (since the majority are animated, it's easier to let the bot do the moving), the cat can be 're-created' and the non-animated films moved "back" to it as the parent for the HBaf cat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:04, 27 August 2012 (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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Competency Assesment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is a WP:FAKEARTICLE - and a rather spammy one at that - with a few random, nebulously-associated articles 'categorised' as a fig leaf and as a see-also section. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If assessment of competencies needed covering, it should be covered in Competence (human resources). The text on the page is at least partly copied from the cited sources, so is not suitable for merging into the article either; I'd tag it,d but I don't think it would be helpful to this CFD to hide it with a WP:COPYVIO template. – Fayenatic London 22:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why should this category not be deletedI am not a professional copywriter or an editor or a lexicographer...I am just an amateur with an interest and competency in competency assessment. Since Wikipedia is about all contributing, I thought I shall contribute to create this category. Competency Assessment is the key for success of any organisation's growth and therefore it deserves a special category.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.144.169 (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to write an article, you should write an article; categories don't work this way. Secondly, you can't cut and paste text from another site; that's copyright violation, which Wikipedia takes very seriously. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article masquerading as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with above statements. daintalk   14:34, 29 August 2012 (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: relisted at CfD 2012 September 16. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Woolworth companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT by shared name. The sub-cats are unrelated entities, and "see also" links would be better than a hierarchical structure. Also, all the direct members of the category and other companies sharing this name are listed in List of Woolworth divisions and namesakes. (Note: at the end, the sub-cats should be members of Category:Wikipedia categories named after retailers.) – Fayenatic London 22:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the three (or so) companies have shared names because the others were named after the American original, there's not enough connection there to categorize them together. It's also a magnet for miscategorization, as can be seen by some of the members. Mangoe (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and prune to remove the namesake companies. Woolworths has a very confusing history with all manner of sell-offs, buy backs and more with the name going all over the place. Cases like the Australian store which, AFAIK, was never linked to F.W. Woolworth but just copied the name should be removed but there's still a lot to populate the category. Per past discussions that created the current tree I don't think Category:F. W. Woolworth divisions that were sold to another company, were then spun off into their own company and subsequently went bankrupt or renamed themselves would be terribly useful. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into new Category:F. W. Woolworth Company - see next nom in list. Yes, the history of the group is confusing, but ther criterion shoul be that the company was at one time a subsidiary or associate of F. W. Woolworth Company, which is (or should be) the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2012 (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: relisted at CfD 2012 September 16. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Woolworth to Category:F. W. Woolworth Company

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article F. W. Woolworth Company. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup Things are a little confusing because there's the Woolworth Company, later Venator Group and now Foot Locker, Inc., and then there are the retail chains known as Woolworth's and Foot Locker. The Foot Locker article and Category:Foot Locker category attempt to cover both the chain and the parent. I see enough content about Woolworth's brands and people to see it as a standalone, but content that is related to the Woolworth Company and not Woolworth the store (e.g. Claire's, Kinney Shoes) would more accurately be placed in Category:Foot Locker now.- choster (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and main article, F. W. Woolworth Company. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But F. W. Woolworth Company is not the main article, or should not be. We don't ordinarily keep separate categories because an entity changes its name. There's no Category:Sears, Roebuck & Co., nor a Category:First National City Bank of New York.- choster (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom. The criterion should be that the company is or was a subsidiary or associate of Category:F. W. Woolworth Company. The UK version of Woolworths was a subsidiary of the US company until bought out by the Paternoster syndicate, but the US company retained a 20% stake. The retail shops retained the Woolworth brand, but a series of demergers took place, initially (if I remember correctly) demerging Kingfisher from Woolworth. Later, B&Q and Comet were split off. Ultimately the original Woolworths shops went bust spectacularly a couple of years ago. We need one parent category to cover all the emanations of Woolworths. We may also need a Category:former Woolworths companies to cover companies that were (but no longer are) connected with the original retain empire, but the initial move should be to merge everything inot one parent that can then be split. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In dealing with continuous organizations, the principle has been to use the current name. That's why it is Category:Macy's, Inc. not Category:Federated Department Stores even though it was the latter for much longer.- choster (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2012 (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: keep both (i.e. do not rename). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ships built in Elbing to Category:Ships built in Elbląg
• Propose renaming Category:Ships built in Stettin to Category:Ships built in Szczecin

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the current names of the cities of Elbląg and Szczecin. - Darwinek (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Shipyards in Elbląg and Szczecin are still in operation. Poeticbent talk 17:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Please note that the renaming of the actual cities is not the objective here. We can say instead: "Elbing shipyard", or "Stettin shipyard" (similar to Battle of Stalingrad as oppose to Battle of Volgograd because the city Volgograd is not called Stalingrad anymore). Conversely, the names Elbing and Stettin are not "Prussian"... They are contemporary names in the German language. Poeticbent talk 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the ships were not built in the Polish cities, they were built in the Prussian cities, thus the new names do not match the contents of the categories. The current names define the time period while the new names makes the time period different from the period when the ships were built. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Ships built in Szczecin already exists. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose These places were/are in different countries at different points in history. It may be that the scope of each category needs to be clarified but they should remain separate. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I basically reiterate what has been said before. It would feel a bit strange to see German World War I warships built in Poland. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - this would be an exception to the "use the most current name when the name changes" standard. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the cities are the same, the current name should be used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree with Mjroots and ADA. daintalk   14:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think having separate categories is a good solution. If any ships build in Elbląg are notable and get their articles, Category:Ships built in Elbląg should be created. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:51, 31 August 2012 (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: delete. It's not impossible to believe that there's a non-POV way to name this category, but no one here seems to have buy-in on one. No prejudice against taking another go at it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Terrorism fuelled by Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Pure POV. Needs either renaming or deletion Facts, not fiction (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Creator's rationale: I wasn't trying to be mean or anything. I simply figured that since there is an article about Pakistan and state sponsored terrorism / Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden with plenty of verifiable or justifiable content in them, it would not be POV to create a category on such basis. Nevertheless, I could have chosen the name more prudently. Wikipedia is not a vote, by the way. Mrt3366 (talk · contribs · count) 09:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There is was a proposal to speedy-rename this category by the author but it was quickly declined because of the existence of this full CfD thread by The Bushranger. Feel free to suggest new names here if you want it to be renamed. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 16:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - I am the creator and I myself wanted to rename it to a more moderate and acceptable name but couldn't find the move button. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 15:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Textbook definition of WP:POV and WP:SOAP, and the placing of the articles within the category is also a sorry case of WP:SYNTHESIS. Mar4d (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Textbook definition of WP:POV and WP:SOAP" - really? I didn't know that.

"the placing of the articles within the category is also a sorry case of WP:SYNTHESIS" - that doesn't mean the category itself should be deleted.

I propose a renaming of the category. If there can be categories like Category:Islamic terrorism by country or Category:Islamic terrorism in India with good reason, there could also be a category titled, Category:Alleged Pakistan-sponsored terrorism or Category:Terrorism alleged to have been sponsored by Pakistani organizations or something in those lines. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 16:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a speedy-rename. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 16:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be fully discussed, then renamed, if kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it has been nominated precisely because of the name, I think your argument kind of collapses on itself. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think there's a neutral and objective way of wording this. I think something like Category:Terrorism by Pakistani organizations might be acceptable, but this category is too broad and vague. Robofish (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think there's a neutral and objective way of wording this" - If by "neutral way" you mean a censored or sanitized way, then you're right and that's because the blatant truth is so against Pakistan. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked whether this was a 'delete' or a 'rename' comment. It could be a 'Rename', except that I think this category is trying to cover too much at the moment: both acts of terrorism by independent Pakistani organisations and alleged acts of terrorism by the Pakistani government. Those don't really belong in the same category, that's what I meant by 'too broad and vague'. I'd support a renamed version of this category only if it was narrowed down to something more specific with clear inclusion criteria. Robofish (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I think this category is trying to cover too much at the moment" — Well that's not insurmountable, is it?
So you think it could be a rename, provided that the articles are categorized cautiously? Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 12:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The category is a vague collection of events and incidents that have not even the remotest connection to Pakistan, apart from the fact that they are alleged by India to be connected to Pakistan. Heck, even those allegations have not been proven or verified. This category is clearly problematic because it is being used to push and advance one particular point of view. It should be deleted as a pure case of POV-pushing. Mar4d (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then de-categorize the articles with appropriate edit summary, instead of pushing its deletion altogether. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:POVTITLE. This POV pushing needs to end in this topic area. --SMS ^Talk 09:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVTITLE is talking about an article. Come on! If you cite pov-title then I also can site WP:SUBPOV. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Standard article naming conventions apply" on Categories too. --SMS ^Talk 09:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So be it then, as evidenced through usages in significant majority of reliable sources, let us follow the sources, as WP:POVTITLE tells us, and use a new more suitable name (as suggested by me and others in this thread) as the category title. This is what I have been saying all along that the name is the problem as opposed to the existence of this category. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 11:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appallingly POV category. And now we seem to have this Category, which is being slapped onto/includes the same pages. While I can buy the argument that it is a more neutral - if cumbersome - title, in a way it's worse, since as currently constituted it suggests that only Pakistan - of all the countries in the world - is, or faces allegations of being, a state sponsor of terrorism. And ultimately, isn't the new proposed category ultimately fairly meaningless and just as open to POV manipulation, albeit on a wider scale, since pretty much every country has faced allegations of sponsoring terrorism? As noted above, the POV pushing in this area, often from established and prolific editors, debases Wikipedia. N-HH talk/edits 10:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category I created does not just contain allegation against Pakistan. And given it was just created perhaps you would help populate it? This category can be used on all articles which contain allegations of SST, I am of the opinion it is a useful and needed cat. Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Key word and biggest problem: "allegation". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Biggest problem is the word "allegation", really? On basis of what policy/guideline do you say this? If there can be categories like Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators or Category:Day care sexual abuse allegations, why not Category:Allegations of state sponsored terrorism? Besides, WP:ALLEGED says

  “Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.”

  Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 09:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -- There is probably the basis for a legitimate category here. There is widespread suspicion that emanations of the Pakistani state are involved in terrorism in Afganistan. However the Pakistan state denies this. It is not clear if the perpetrators are independent organisations that the Pakistani authorities have infiltrated, but failed to suppress or control, or whether the authorities are dissembling in their denials. Category:Terrorism allegedly fuelled by Pakistan might fit the bill or Category:Allegations of Pakistan-fuelled terrorism. That Pakistan is guilty of what is alleged is a view widely held by independent journalists and foreign governments. We need a non-POV title, but should keep the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the title has many POV issues, and opens up even more controversial categories.It should be remembered that we avoid "alleged" categories, so throwing that word in the title will make the category name even more porblematic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "we avoid "alleged" categories" — Mostly yeah, but there are categories as well as articles with the word "alleged" in one form or the other.
  Since "Standard article naming conventions apply" to categories too, see WP:SUBPOV.
  By the way, the word "allegation" is not inherently avoided as long as it's explicitly backed by the reliable sources. It's my understanding that wikipedia rules/guidelines are to be applied with common sense, without that they can be misused and induce loss of perspective. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?) (New section?)} 10:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:POVTITLE. Brickchairbrickchair (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC) - — Brickchairbrickchair (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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: merge to Category:Sportspeople from Istanbul. The two editors citing New York City as a precedent appear not to have followed the links in the nominator's rationale to previous discussions in which similar categories were deleted. It would not have been hard to check, and notice that Category:Basketball players from New York City was deleted in March 2009 ... and consenus-formation is disrupted when editors fail to do even very simple checks before making a !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Basketball players from Istanbul to Category:Sportspeople from Istanbul

Nominator's rationale: Merge per this discussion and this discussion and per WP:OVERCAT. TM 15:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Istanbul is over 10 million people city and most of the Turkish basketball players come from the city. Not all the article belonging to that category have been moved in yet. I am sure the category can grow. (see Category:Basketball players from New York City) CeeGee (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom and precedent. NYC is a special case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NYC is a relevant example, since the cities have similar population sizes. This category works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2012 (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: keep all. The current names fit the convention pointed out to by choster. However, it's clear from the discussion here that this convention causes confusion about the purpose of these categories, so editors may want to consider a wider discussion on renaming all these categories to something less ambiguous.
Feel free to make any such wider nomination immediately. The failure of this particular proposal should not be cited as an impediment to solving the underlying problem identified here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Japanese in California to Category:Japanese Americans in California
• Propose renaming Category:Japanese in Hawaii to Category:Japanese Americans in Hawaii
• Propose renaming Category:Japanese in Oregon to Category:Japanese Americans in Oregon
• Propose renaming Category:Japanese in Washington (state) to Category:Japanese Americans in Washington (state)

Nominator's rationale: The proposed category names more accurately reflects the topics being categorizedMyasuda (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• do not rename The current names follow those found in all similar sub-categories at the start of Category:Ethnic groups in the United States by state, none of which are being changed. There is also no reason to think the contents of all of these categories and articles is limited to foo-Americans; they also include foo nationals. Hmains (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Americans are not Japanese. The other category names in similar sub-categories should also be changed. This is just the first one to be nominated. — Myasuda (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not be 'People of Japanese descent in Foo'? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would work for me. — Myasuda (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• read the category articles As with similar categories I mentioned above, the content is not bio articles. It is aricles on Japanese culture and history in the US. These renames are perfectly not applicable and do nothing but confuse everything here. Hmains (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- "Japanese culture and settlement in foo". The content is not bio-articles, which according to the international standard (not applied in US would be 'People of Japanese descent in Foo', but the content covers neighborhoods with a high Japanese population and Japanese gardens (inspired by Japanese culture). Peterkingiron (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Foos in Bar is the most common naming format in Category:Ethnic groups in the United States by state; see for example Category:Ethnic groups in New York or Category:Ethnic groups in Louisiana. Any change should be done systematically.- choster (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in this case Japanese is being used as an ethnic, not a nationality, designator. There are Texas Germans and there are Japanese Hawaiians, not Texas German-Americans or Japanese-American Hawaiians, well there are the later, but they would be a different ethnic group. These categories are about the history of these ethnic groups in the place. It is ethnicity, not mere descent, that is being tracked. Thus the original culture is playing the controlling role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2012 (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: listify. The list already exists at List of paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger, but the list should be checked to ensure that it includes all the articles validly placed in this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Portrait by Hans Holbein the younger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category contains the subjects of the portraits e.g. Henry VIII of England, not articles about individual portraits. The paintings are in Category:Paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger. This would work better as a list to avoid overcategorisation, and it already exists at List of paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger. Tim! (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nearly identical to Category:People important in Tudor England, it's clearly non-defining. I cannot imagine we've categorized people by who painted them. Mangoe (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain As the nominator for deletion notices, it is a category for articles about people depicted by Holbein, not the paintings themselves. Holbein also painted religious and allegorical subjects. As Holbein was latterly in royal employment, there are political diplomatic reasons why he painted non-English sitters, as he did. The category, as is clearly stated, also includes sitters whose portraits are not known to exist, who were painted for diplomatic reasons which were recorded, and these people would not appear in a list of paintings. (I suppose you might think of it like a category "Subject of biopic film" or "On Senator McCarthy Blacklist" if these had any merits) Unoquha (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a) not defining for the known sitters; b) category names should be plural; c) there are very few paintings in the list that Tim! links to that are not portraits. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify by merging into List of paintings by Hans Holbein the Younger: I suspect that there is more in the category than the list. This category is a misuse of category-space, since it is categorising people painted by Holbein. That is a performance by performer category (albeit not quite the usual kind). REname, if kept to Category:People painted by Hans Holbein the younger. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2012 (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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Idol groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#OVERLAPPING most of the groups in this category are also in boy bands or girl groups categories. Krystaleen 08:17, 25 August 2012 (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: delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hip Hop double albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessay diffusion of double albums by genre. All are categorized in artists whose parent categories are under hip hop and each of the albums are already in Category:Double albums, so no need to upmerge. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:55, 25 August 2012 (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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who wish a lot of others would come back too, but who don't have the energy to categorize them all (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Presumably in response to the absolute embarrassment to the user category system that was to keep this category, this is even less helpful- Two wrongs don't make a right. Does not support collaboration in the least. Violates WP:USERCAT. VegaDark (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - pretty silly, and of no use for collaboration. Robofish (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I warned that the previous category was unwise and a dangerous precedent. Wikipedia categories are not supposed to be feel good shout outs, even user categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Firstly, I don’t understand the nomination. My first reaction is to note the lack of diligence by the nominator. I created, and that’s not hard to determine. I could have readily informed his presumption. It has nothing (directly) to do with Bish and Giano. In fact, I thought I was still seeing them around, although I cross paths with Giano very infrequently.

I don’t get the connection alluded with the linked CfD, although the references to heartlessness caused pain.

Why did I create this category? I came across the redlink and remembered the number of times I have read “What happens when a Wikipedian dies?” Dies or disappears “… He or she just doesn't show up to edit anymore. Does anybody notice? Does anybody really even care?” Some care.

What happens when a Wikipedian dies? Through natural causes, by others or by their own hand? He or she just doesn't show up to edit anymore. Does anybody notice? Does anybody really even care? To all those Wikipedians who may have died and been forgotten here, Thank you for your contributions and Rest in Peace.

Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians & Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians are good locations to go when you want to dwell on the memories of past acquaintances. But you go there unobserved. There is no evidence of others paying respects there.

Some choose to write on memorial pages. That’s no always appropriate. And less often is it appropriate to make idle conversation. Some choose to make lists of no-longer-active accounts. That’s a semi-private activity.

I miss quite a number of other editors who no longer seem to be around. Unrelated examples include W.marsh (I like to think still here under a pseudonym), Radiant! (regularly lurks), Badlydrawnjeff (dunno) and Abd (if only he could control his verbosity). There are many others, but I don’t want to list them publically, let alone rank or sort them.

What I’d like to do is know others who similar regret the absence of others. Having found someone already in such a category, I joined. I think the category suitable for this purpose. I think this purpose is worthwhile, as one important facet of any community. I don’t know that it is actually “productive” in any direct sense.

Regarding WP:USERCAT, I afraid that I have little respect for it. It’s supported rigidly by a few according to a very narrow idea of what is good for the community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Category is, frankly, meaningless, impossibly broad, and violates the consensus guideline. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. This is a pointless category which does not assist collaboration ... but it is no more or less useless than Category:Wikipedians who wish Bish and Giano would come back. Either delete them both, or keep them both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two wrongs don't make a right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two wrongs are sometimes better than selective application of a principle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This user category is useless. Anyone who has contributed to the project long enough to experience the loss of someone retiring should be in this category. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:31, 31 August 2012 (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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American cult films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not a genre as such. Difficult to define. Seems to be based on one user's personal choices. DrKiernan (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:Weak delete: By that rationale French New Wave isn't a genre because it says French. You make a good argument on personal choices, though. Sort of. Read my edit summary. Lighthead...KILLS!! 06:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The category for Cult films was deleted in a previous discussion. There is no real def. of a "cult film". Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 07:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Based on Lugnuts clarification. I have to admit, I glossed over DrKiernan's argument of difficult to define. Wholeheartedly support deletion. Lighthead...KILLS!! 01:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete limiting the scope to US films isn't going to fix the issues that led to the last deletion. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't I called it "Category:American cult films" because in the future, I was thinking of doing other categories of cult films from other countries. - FriscoKnight, 8:59, 25 August, 2012
• Delete. Impossible to cite. Far too many films are titled cult films without citation or notation. Remove the category. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• There also many categories like American drama films that have the same situation but that category is still around. So, what's the difference? - FriscoKnight
• Weak keep (don't really know how this voting thing works but what the hell) – I think the cult film is an interesting phenomenon that would be of interest to be documented. It's a category that may require maintenance, sure. So do other categories – I cleaned out so many films like Child's Play, for example, from the slasher film category. I don't think this one will be any worse. I'd advocate immediate removal of the category from articles in which its status as a cult film is not established.

"There is no real definition of a cult film" – I'd say a film with a highly devoted/dedicated, but small, underground, fanbase. Troll 2, Pink Flamingos, Donnie Darko, The Room all have obsessive fanbases, but I reckon they're all still underground films, in that, for example, they wouldn't readily be shown on the same TV network that would air something like American Idol or The O.C. which the majority seem to watch.

There is no absolute necessity for a category like this, but I think if there's an article on cult films, it wouldn't hurt to have a category as well. Lachlan Foley (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. When I saw this appearing on articles a day or two ago, I knew there would be trouble. I removed it from films on my watchlist that are never defined as "cult films," but the categorization is simply problematic. The cult films article is a mess, and numerous films are classified as such with no good source to back up the claim. A category only makes the situation worse. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too easy to confuse with Category:American films about cults and Category:Films about American cults.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• How is the title confusing? - FriscoKnight 20:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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: keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Grain elevators in Alberta to Category:Buildings and structures in Alberta, Category:Agricultural buildings in Canada and Category:Grain elevators

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Like the city one below, this is the only by province/state category in the tree. I don't see a need at this point to break these out at this point. At this point, it may be wise to leave Category:Grain elevator museums in Alberta‎ alone. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. If this is merged, that would leave Category:Grain elevators in Canada by province empty and that would need deleting. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are significant grain-producing provinces. I'd suspect that this is a valid category tree that just needs expansion and populating, instead of demolishing the house. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is enough here to justify the category, and it is likely a few more articles will be created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2012 (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 to Category:Grain elevators in New York, and add all articles to Category:Buildings and structures in Buffalo, New York. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Grain elevators in Buffalo, New York to Category:Buildings and structures in Buffalo, New York and Category:Grain elevators

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is the only by city category in the tree and it contains only 3 articles. With Category:Grain elevators not over populated, I not sure that we need this category or if there is a need to break these out by city. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Grain elevators in New York - as with the Canada ones, this should be seen as the start of a populatable category tree - in this case, 'grain elevators by state', which I'm quite sure is populatable - grain elevators pop up throughout the Midwest and Great Plains like weeds. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Breaking them out by country would be legitimate, with by state or province subcategories where warranted — but by individual city certainly isn't needed. Rename to Category:Grain elevators in New York per The Bushranger, or upmerge to Category:Grain elevators in the United States instead of just Category:Grain elevators. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can support merging to Category:Buildings and structures in Buffalo, New York and Category:Grain elevators in the United States which was created after the nomination. Clearly looking at this one there are not so many other articles at this time to even consider state breakouts. Proposals to rename, if deemed to be the consensus, are really incorrect since that would drop Category:Buildings and structures in Buffalo, New York from the articles. So adding that category to those articles would need to be a part of the close. Note that many categories have the potential to be too large and to need subcategories. That does not mean we create them long before we have an ample number of articles to populate the top level categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• cmt the US country level should do just fine, based on the numbers involved Hmains (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Grain elevators in New York. This category has potential to be too big for just a US category, but there is no reason to do it by city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2012 (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.