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, but not upmerging Category:Greek Revival architecture in the United States by state. Only two users mentioned this and they disagreed, so I suggest a nomination focused on this one category if deletion is still considered appropriate; the proposal to upmerge this category may have just been overlooked. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmergingCategory:Greek Revival buildings in the United States by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As with the discussion on Gothic Revival building categories, the broader "architecture" is preferable ("buildings and structures" is more commonly applied to categories about the type of building or structure, whereas "architecture" categorizes them by era and style). Based on the way similar architectural style branches are developing, I think the "by state" layer is unneeded but that there is plenty of growth to be had for all of the state-level subcats, which also addresses issues raised in Feb 2007.- choster (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately excluded that cat as it will almost certainly be completely depopulated after a thorough cleanup— no need to move all the articles from one cat to another only to move them again to a third a few days later.- choster (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename Category:Greek Revival buildings in the United States by state to Category:Greek Revival architecture in the United States by state. Nominator said 'upmerge' but there is no proper parent category to upmerge this to without losing the purpose of this category, which is to collect the 'by state' subcategories. I see I created many of the listed subcats for each state, but the rename proposal offers a better naming pattern. Hmains (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They would be upmerged to Category:Greek Revival architecture in the United States (if the nom to rename there from Category:Greek Revival buildings in the United States is accepted). There are extremely few articles that would be listed in the main category, which is why I think the "by state" layer is superfluous.- choster (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this is what I think is wrong. 'By state' is by convention used in cases where the categories are actually for each US state. This makes the name clearly reflect the contents. There are probably hundreds of instances of this pattern; no reason to make this an exception. Hmains (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are an even greater number of instances where the "by country," "by state," and "by city" layers are omitted because they would complicate navigation rather than simplify it; sort keys are sufficient.- choster (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I created a few of these also, but the proposal does offer a better naming pattern. Support renaming as nominated. Altairisfar 20:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because this would then be in line with how the other architectural styles are categorized. --Caponer (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2010 (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.
Saturday morning television
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/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Saturday morning programming on NBC to Category:NBC network shows
Category:Saturday morning programming on CBS to Category:CBS network shows
Category:Saturday morning programming on the American Broadcasting Company to Category:American Broadcasting Company network shows
Nominator's rationale:Delete as overcategorisation. Television schedulers do try to understand the different characteristics of their potential audiences in different timeslots, and have many different segments, but that does mean that it is appropriate to categorise TV programs according to which of these slots they occupy. I can see no argument for retaining this category which could not equally well be applied to sunday mornings, saturday afternoons, saturday evenings, sunday afternoons and evening, friday evenings, and so on ... but if we go down this path, we will clutter TV programmes with narrow categories related to the timeslot in which they are broadcast. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first two per nom. Television series should not be categorized by such a category, particularly when so many air multiple times and multiple timeslots as they are rebroadcast and shifted around. Also support the merger, but request that each cat be checked and verified that all three contain only programming original to those specific channels, versus reairings of syndicated content. -- Collectonian (talk ·contribs) 22:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge Day of week a show aired is not a defining characteristic. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2010 (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:American LGBT Jews
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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. A triple intersection between nationality, religion/ethncity, and sexuality. This fails the requirement of WP:CATGRS that such a category shoukd be created only when an encyclopedic article could be written on the topic, and see no evidence that "American LGBT Jews" is a distinct topic from "LGBT Jews". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom; triple intersection that fails CATGRS. Is this ? .... yup, it is. :( Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Interesting who may be in this category (apart from the famous pianist who said "All good pianists are either Jewish or homosexual"). Debresser (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2010 (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.
College men's basketball head coaches by team in the United States
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:Upmerge all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting: Category:College men's basketball head coaches by team in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Central Missouri Mules basketball head coaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overclassification per WP:OC#SMALL, because most of these categories will never have more than a few entries. A short list of head coaches can easily be included in the article on each team. ---BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we should delete these categories since that guy is obvious moron, just on that alone--Levineps (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making such facetious comments. They are not constructive contributions here, and they only serve to indicate that you are still not taking the problems seriously that were raised at the AN/I and unanimously confirmed by the community. postdlf (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as over-categorisation. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Being a head coach is a defining characteristic and lumping them all with other coaches loses a great deal of useful information for navigation purposes. I understand the issues involved in challenging the powers-that-be, and this appears to be a knee-jerk decision by BrownHairedGirl to oppose anything created by the editor in question regardless of its clear utility and benefit to the project. Alansohn (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mischaracterize her proposal, under which head coaches would be grouped together with other coaches by team, but also together in Category:College men's basketball head coaches in the United States, so that "defining characteristic" would not be lost. The argument is that segregation of the head coaches by team split up what were already small categories, spreading the head coaches in near-isolation in sparsely-populated categories. You may reasonably disagree with that (I don't have a position yet myself), but regardless your characterization of BHG and her motivation here is extremely inappropriate, particularly given that other editors have criticized these categories on the creator's talk page and elsewhere. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Alansohn, that assumption of bad faith is both uncivil and wrong: my reasons for nominating these categories are as set out in the nomination, that they are all small and will remain small. Back to the substance of the discussion: what exactly is the "great deal of useful information for navigation purposes" which you believe will be lost by an upmerger? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed you've attacked people who criticize as being uncivil. But isn't reverting edits a particular person "both uncivil and wrong" as well. Hypocrispy in action!--Levineps (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Levineps, you raised exactly that point at ANI, and not one editor has responded in your support. You have already been asked to stop disrupting this discussion with facetious remarks; now please stop disrupting it with personal attacks. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely pointing out your conduct and the hypocrispy involved. You don't seem to mind to slander others and are very disrespect. It is not a personal attack but merely pointing out some facts about your work.--Levineps (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion about whether to delete categories. if you have complaints about my conduct, take it to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge all per nom; delete the empties. Putting aside the creator issue for a moment, this is objectively overcategorization. All the coaches should be grouped together; we don't want to slice these into assistant coaches, head coaches, defence coaches, etc. because it creates overly small categories and makes category navigation more tedious. Going back to the creator issue, this is a fine example of what everyone has been talking about at the ANI, and hopefully the situation will resolve itself soon. The completion of this nomination is an inspiring job, BTW. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That generalization will not be true for all 200+ categories listed. Check these categories for any marquee program or historically successful team for examples. We shouldn't use a chainsaw where a scalpel is more appropriate.LanternLight (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes—it will be true for all. That's what I believe. That's why I said it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A review of the categories of coaches at schools like Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, etc. demonstrates that separating assistant coaches from head coaches will not create "overly small categories" - especially since there are head coaches not yet classified into those categories at present. LanternLight (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather have uniformity the other way for ease of navigation, which is why I said what I said. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all. This parallels what we do with players, generalizing by team and specifying by position, but not both in the same category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is rare that someone would be interested in finding, for instance, all of the point guards who played at North Carolina, but there are many reasons why someone would be interested in finding all of the head coaches for that program over the years, or all of the assistant coaches, many of which (as at other successful programs) later went on to be notable head coaches, with the assistant coaching position at a good school as a launching pad. It is probably frequent that someone would be inclined to view a list of head coaches or assistant coaches only for a certain program, for reasons including seeing quickly a list of coaching progeny produced by a program's head coaches.LanternLight (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Users will be interested in finding the information" is never a convincing reason to keep a category. It is a reason for keeping information in Wikipedia, but not all information worth finding in Wikipedia is contained in categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, utility and practicality should never factor into these decisions. That makes sense... LanternLight (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that. Please speak for yourself, and don't mischaracterize my comments. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, All. For the two examples you cite, Dayton and Central Missouri, you state "most of these categories will never have more than a few entries." I'm not sure that is accurate. Do you know how many head coaches Dayton, for example, has had over the years? Do you know how many head coaches at that school or elsewhere are notable and will likely have their own article at some point? Do you know how many coaches at any of these schools, assistants included, are (or in future will be) notable? I think not, as you state "most of these categories will never have more than a few entries" which I think is inaccurate save for the admission - both fairly and accurately on your part - that at least some (an underestimate, probably) do already have more than a few entries. Further review of the many categories you raise here will show that many of them have many entries, and for those, there's good reason to differentiate between head coaches and assistants: people navigating through those categories will often be doing so while researching the history of a program, the lineage of various programs' coaching progeny, etc. Look at the categories you mention above under just the letter K for instance. For those and others it will make sense to differentiate between head coaches and assistants. There's no reason to delete those categories indiscriminately. I think some here might be surprised at how often these categories are used by sports fans for quick reference for multiple associated articles, and I'd ask that such utility not be impeded, especially with one broad stroke across the board instead of only to those categories to which the rationale set forth in the initial proposal applies.LanternLight (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. You are assuming that every single head coach for every single team will be notable, which seems unlikely, and that each team will also have squillions of notable assistant coaches, which seems even more unlikely (unless somebody had written one of those exceptions to the notability guidelines to make eveyone connected with a baseball club automatically notable). Why not just use a list of head coaches for each team, in the team's coaches category and create a navigation template between the coaches? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I make no such assumption. But I am certain that there are many articles out there for whch the subject's service as a head coach at one school or as an assistant coach at another school is notable and interesting, and I am certain that there are many instances in which people find navigating by those categories to be helpful. I also don't see why all of the 200+ categories ought to be deleted when many of them are very useful, and have significant numbers of included articles. LanternLight (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per nominator. Is this a quadrupal interstion? OCAT. While being a head coach can be important, I don't believe that being the head coach of any and every team is defining. With the upmerge nothing is really lost since the articles are still listed by head coach and by school. Not overriding reason why we need to do this lower level breakdown for college teams. It seems that the keep arguments are saying we need to keep these articles since that aspect is defining. Note that the upmerge still leaves these people in the head coach category. Are we are doing is removing the by school groupings which are the OCAT. So I don't see how the upmerge is against the arguments for keeping. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2010 (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:Baltimore Bullets scouts
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overclassification. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For this and all the other sports-related categories you've just nominated here, is any upmerging appropriate, or just outright deletion? Seeing the likely merge targets will help others better evaluate why these particular categories are unnecessary subdivisions or intersections. Additionally, the category creator had a habit of removing many categories he apparently considered redundant when he would add his own, so all of that should be reviewed. No opinion on the merits of this CFD otherwise. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This category, and the one above it Category:Washington Wizards scouts and the one above it Category:National Basketball Association scouts, are part of a so far underdeveloped category structure Category:National Basketball Association personnel. i say we give it a chance to get populated. After all, they were created only two days ago. Debresser (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and then delete the empty parent Category:Washington Wizards scouts. Being part of an undeveloped categroy structure created by a topic banned user is not grounds to keep. Note that 20 days after the last comment, it is still not developed. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2010 (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:Milwaukee Bucks owners
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 into Category:National Basketball Association owners. Jafeluv (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? You usually call that "Part of an existing category structure". So please don't talk down to somebody who says the same thing in simpler words. Debresser (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these were all just created and the editor that created them was banned from having anything to do with categories. Part of the reason was creating categories that were excessive. You can read the sanction summary if you want details. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Levineps, as I rephrased it above: part of an well-developed category structure Category:National Basketball Association owners. Debresser (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:National Basketball Association owners, and followup by upmerging all the other subcats of Category:National Basketball Association owners. Sports clubs are not bought and sold every day like commodities; in most cases, ownership seems to be something which last for five years or more, sometimes a lot more. So for most individual clubs, the list of owners will short enough to make a small section in the head article on the team. Making a category for each of these small sections just creates lots of small categories, splitting up Category:National Basketball Association owners into tiny categories which impede navigation rather than helping it. (Currently, there are 45 articles on NBA owners in the 12 13 sub-categories, an average of less than 4 per team). Debresser's point about "Part of an existing category structure" is one that is frequently made, but it seems to me that it is not useful as a generic response. Small categories as part of a wider structure work where that wider includes at least some sub-categories which have the potential to grow to a reasonable size. Instead, what we have in this case is a situation where the sub-categories of Category:National Basketball Association owners will only ever be small, and instead of one category of a few hundred NBA owners we will have dozens of categories mostly containing 3 or 4 articles. That's not helpful to readers. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge per BHG. No convincing reason that these need to be divided by franchise in the category system. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. No convincing reason offered why this and the related categories are not OCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per other comments above. This entire area needs cleaning. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2010 (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:Detroit Shock executives
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 into parent categories. Jafeluv (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge per Debresser to the parents. No convincing reason for subcategorization by franchise in the category system. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:43, 4 January 2010 (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:Jewish American rappers
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: Overclassification. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-defined and defining category. Alansohn (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Jewish American musicians, Category:American rappers and Category:Jewish rappers. Per WP:CATGRS, intersection categories such as this between occupation and religion should be created only when the intersection is itself an encyclopedic topic distinct from . I see no evidence that "Jewish American rap" is a distinct genre, but if anyone has such evidence then please present it. This is also a triple intersection category between (ethnicity/religion, nationality, and occupation), and triple intersection categories are generally deprecated. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change of opinion to Upmerge per arguments above. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Category:American rappers by ethnic or national origin, in which this category would belong, even though it was inexplicably left out. That structure is obviously relevant to the merits of this category, and it is likely that the contents of this category would (also) belong in Category:European American rappers if it is merged anywhere. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you assume that all Jewish American rappers are white? Justin Warfield is an African-American member of this category. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorance. Or indifference to rappers. postdlf (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being so snippy. There are perhaps as many as 200,000 African-American Jews and we're too often rendered invisible by the assumption that all Jews are white. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is defining. A Jewish American rapper must be an oddity. :) More seriously, probably also upmerge as too narrow an intrsection to be defining. Debresser (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2010 (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:Jewish American atheists
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: Too strange. Very vague. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator. Too obscure a topic. Lord Spongefrog,(I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this divides up the expansive American Jews category and being an athiest is related to religion so it's not just a random category--Levineps (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite the apparent oxymoron, this is a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two concerns.
First, is this just a group of Jewish Americans who happen to be atheists, making this an arbitrary intersection of two unrelated characteristics, or are their Jewish Americanism [sic] and atheism substantially related and connected? The answer to that may be complicated given the dual nature of Jewishness as an ethnicity and a religion.
Second, will the existence of this category segregate these individuals either within either of the category structures that intersect here? In other words, will they only be categorized as Jewish Americans through their atheism, and will they only be categorized as atheists through their Jewish Americanism? Some may view the solution to that as permitting nonexclusive categorization, such as putting an individual in both this category and Category:American atheists. If that's to be the solution, it should be noted that the category creator removed all such categories he considered "redundant" when populating this one, all of which should be reviewed in any event given that editor's ban from edits category space. postdlf (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People by religious belief is subcategorized by nationality, not ethnicity, so these individuals should be double-listed in "American atheists" and in "Jewish Americans."- choster (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change of opinion to Upmerge per arguments above. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a general note, intersecting every categorizeable fact with every other fact is not a good idea. You either end up with an exponential growth in categories when every permutation is categorized, or ridiculously narrow categories that combine multiple facts into an awkward conglomerate. Subdividing a large category is not a catch-all justification for any arbitrary subcategorization. postdlf (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is also a mistake to assume that large categories must be divided into sub-categories. Categories of biographical articles, in which people are sorted by name, continue to work well even with several thousand articles so long as category navigation templates are used appropriately. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Good Ol’factory. Those two categories are defining, but this is too narrow an intersection. BTW, didn't we have this once before? Or something very much like it? Debresser (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Good Ol’factory and Debresser; as nominator and the others note, this is a pretty strange category. A "Jewish atheist" identity is significant to a people who identify as part of a Jewish community, while Category:American atheists is a useful intersection of people by religion and nationality. The current permutation discussed here, on the other hand, turns out as un-Wikipedia as Swedish-American atheists – a very unhelpful rearrangment of the contents of two actually useful categories. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Going by an even slightly strict definition of "Jewish", the very name of the category is a self-contradiction. 86.169.83.199 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2010 (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:Historical events occurring near Christmastime
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. Jafeluv (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Historical events occurring near Christmastime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Kind of a vague, flexible category. What is "near Christmastime"? (Judging by the store displays at Wal-Mart when I lived in the U.S. and Canada, I think it begins shortly after Labor Day.) For that matter, what is "Christmastime"? Dec. 25 only? Dec. 25 plus the day before and day after? Give or take 3 days, or a week? Or does it go all the way to Epiphany? What about the "orthodox Christmas" issue? Do things happening around January 6/7 work for this category if it happened in an "orthodox" country? Do we categorize everything that happened on December 25 into this category? It seems that this is why we have the articles December 25 and those for the other days in December and January. How does "near" fit into how we define the date range? ... (I could go on, but I would, as usual, be belabouring the point.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 11:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- the liturgical Christmas season runs for 12 days following Christmas... so, "Christmastime"? Advent all the way to Orthodox Epiphany? Why not just "Historical Events that Occurred in December?" Wal-Mart Christmas that runs from All Saints Day until the merchandise is gone? There's no standard for inclusion, and no objective basis for having this category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Sounds like Category:Events occuring near the imminent deletion of this category. Debresser (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, have you read WP:BEANS? ;) I don't want to have to discuss that category next week! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Click all you want, just don't save anything! ;) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2010 (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:Presidents of Georgia Alliance of African American Attorneys
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.
Category:Presidents of Georgia Alliance of African American Attorneys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:Delete: The list in the category text is already in the main article. Further, none of these people appear to have articles to add to this category, resulting in a one-article category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator of the category (as well as the main article) is among those listed, a possible conflict of interest. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is no sufficient reason for deletion in and of itself. Debresser (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are very unlikely to ever need a category for this. The subject may be notable but he still shouldn't be writing about an organisation he is involved in. I suggest somebody tries to clean up his article. I am just going to tag it a bit. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2009 (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:Ngo Dinh Diem
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:withdrawn (self-close). My concerns were taken care of by moving the article to the non-diacritical form.Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Debate. This is more of a "test case"-type debate I want to see than anything else. I'm confused with how we treat diacritics in category names. The main article is at Ngô Đình Diệm; the category is without diacritics. So, in a situation like this: (1) do we add the diacritics to the category?; (1a) if no, why not?; (2) if no, does that mean we should be removing diacritics from other categories that have them? (2a) if no, why not? And if the answers to (1) and (2) are both "no": (3) how do we reconcile this? Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of initial discussion at speedy rename section (where rename was opposed)
Rename per nom, but recreate as a category redirect. We decided (discussion) that "appropriate conversion of hyphens into en-dashes or vice versa" should be performed and even codified it as a speedy renaming criterion. I can't think of a good reason for us not to apply the same principle to a different special character, though I will state that I have reservations about making "appropriate conversions into titles with diacritics" a speedy renaming criterion (mostly so that issues involving romanisation and diacritics in native-language spelling versus common English usage can receive full discussion). A few months ago, I probably would have opposed this proposed change; however, I am content to follow the consensus reached in the linked discussion. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 09:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed as impossible to type. A category redirect could be placed in reverse, so if anyone copied the article title it'll still work, but I don't think diacritics in categories are necessary. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You answered (1) and (1a); can you also answer (2), (2a), and (3)? I'm not challenging you, I'm just curious as how we work this more globally. Good Ol’factory(talk) 11:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just create the category redirects from the plain version when the diacritics are used; from the diacritics version when the plain version is used, and just accept that the status quo is logically inconsistent. Changing all these really strikes me as more work than it is worth, when category redirects can be used to achieve the benefits of both the accuracy of diacritics, and the ease of not having to deal with them. That way the whole question becomes a non-issue to editors and a bot will do all the work once the system is set up. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that could work; I don't see why some of the "real" categories should be diacritic-filled and others diacritic-less, though. If we adopted one way or the other, it would be much easier to implement in the long run. Good Ol’factory(talk) 12:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match full title of parent article, with a redirect available. Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename for the reasons above: impossible to type in searches, in links etc. Useless time wasting to copy and paste. Create any redirects to this as needed. This should be done for all such similar situations: this is an English encyclopedia using 'English' alphabet; should go in the MOS if not already there. Hmains (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that the first two hits on google for "Ngo Dinh Diem" are for "Ngô Đình Diệm", both on wikipedia. The other 98 are for "Ngo Dinh Diem". Vegaswikian (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a very good argument for moving the article. In the end, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on how the article is named, but what I am concerned with is having category names that are inconsistent with article names when they are referring to precisely the same thing. How do we justify the divergence? Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did some digging and this article has been moved back and forth. The only discussion on the talk page seems to support the article at Ngo Dinh Diem which is where it now is and where the vast majority of the inbound links use. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see that you did! In that case, my concerns in this discussion are redundant and I can withdraw this. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (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:Dance disambiguation pages
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. Disambiguation pages do not need, and generally cannot be categorised. All dab pages are categorised in Category:Disambiguation pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as superfluous category, because I can see no navigational benefit to readers in having a category of disambiguation pages. WikiProjects sometimes categorise disambiguation pages within their area of interest, but such categorisation is applied to talk pages, not to articles, and is generated through the WikiProject banners, so there is no easy way to merge this category to Category:Disambig-Class Dance articles. I will notify WP:DANCE of this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 30 December 2009 (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:Ballet disambiguation pages
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: Disambiguation pages do not need, and generally cannot be categorised. All dab pages are categorised in Category:Disambiguation pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as superfluous category, because I can see no navigational benefit to readers in having a category of disambiguation pages. WikiProjects sometimes categorise disambiguation pages within their area of interest, but such categorisation is applied to talk pages, not to articles, and is generated through the WikiProject banners, so there is no easy way to merge this category to Category:Disambig-Class ballet articles. I will notify WP:DANCE of this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 30 December 2009 (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:Prince protégés
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. Jafeluv (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Kind of like a "students of ..." category. We generally don't categorize people (or groups) by mentoring relationship or connection to a notable person. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If all the artists were notable primarily for their association with Prince— and indeed the category charter specifies those "mentored" by him— I don't think it would be unreasonable. In practice, however, it is difficult to distinguish "influence" from "inspiration" from "association" from "collaboration" from "tutelage" from "mentorship," and indeed the contents of the category seem to include any artist who has ever worked with him on anything at any time. So I would list the truly intrinsically tied articles like The New Power Generation directly in the parent, and remove the category from the others.- choster (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no clear definition of "protégé", so this category fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, and it is unclear what degree of association would be defining for the people who might be include in this category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and the girl with the brown hairs (do you have nice brown eyes also?). Debresser (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Minneapolis sound artists. Here's another possibility. Since all these artists are part of the Minneapolis sound style created by Prince, we can unite them by that. And then Prince can be in the category too. If deletion is endorsed on the very reasonable grounds that Prince's proteges shouldn't be categorized that way, I'd like to create the Minneapolis sound category, and it would be much easier to do as a rename from this existing category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea, but only about half of the articles in the category are linked from Minneapolis sound. The list may simply be incomplete, or in fact those artists might have no connection to the Minneapolis sound.- choster (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no objection to the creation of that category, if it were done properly. I'm not sure that a straight rename here would get it done right, though. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. If I decide to do it later, I'll do it from scratch.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2010 (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:Post-disco
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 all. "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy then a list article is likely to be more appropriate." I believe the controversy of the topic as shown in this AfD proves that categorization is not the right way to go here. The genre is suspect as are many of the inclusions within this category. Wolfer68 (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any references in Post-disco that confirm "post-disco" to be an actual music genre or movement. It is just a fuzzy term which can be defined in many ways. Jvhertum (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (except Category:Post-disco music, this is useless category, delete) all items included in this categories are sourced. It should be more improved - delete non-related things and so it should be keeped. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the sourcing demonstrates is that someone has applied the label "post-disco" to the topics in these categories, and without that the categories should be depopulated. But the sourcing doesn't answer the question at stake here, which is whether there is a definition of "post-disco" to provide include criteria which are neither arbitrary nor subjective. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all sources demonstrated it. So I guess original post-disco article should include and mention all category stuff so it can be keep'd so it will be not a random mentioning of the term. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2010 (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:Edgar Degas
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. The category may be deleted later if an acceptable method for navigation is worked out. Ruslik_Zero 13:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unless populated, only creates an extra level of categorization before Category:Works by Edgar Degas is reached. Either populate with non-works articles or delete. I'm not sure what it could be populated with, otherwise I would do it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can not disagree with Good Ol’factory's argument, but it does make sense to keep a category for the author and another one for his works. Just for proper categorising. Debresser (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It makes sense to keep a category for the author... if anything besides his article could actually be placed there. Since there's not, delete it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose. These eponymous categories for creative people do serve a useful purpose, because without them there is no way to navigate from the categories listed at the bottom of their biography to the categories for their works. I'm uncomfortable with creating such sparsely-populated categories, but much marginally more uncomfortable at the separation which otherwise results. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that "problem" currently exists for every author or artist who has created works that has a "works by" category and no eponymous category. We're talking about thousands of authors and artists. Do we remedy this by creating eponymous categories for all of them?? I don't think that's the way to solve this issue. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An inline category link can go under the see also section, or under the works section. postdlf (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, it can be done. However, it's not often done. Maybe it should be done more, but it does feel like a bit of a kludge. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 9 January 2010 (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:Presidents of the Swazi Senate
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.
Rename per nominator. Looks uncontroversial, but it doesn't fit the speedy criteria. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Can't anticipate opposition since the list-article is so named. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2010 (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.