< August 11	August 13 >

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:Species made extinct by human activities. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Extinct species by human activities to Category:Extinct species caused by human activities

Nominator's rationale: grammar. Or maybe Category:Extinct species due to human activities? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rename to Category:Extinct species caused by human activities to make it easier for the reader to understand what this category is about. Hmains (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would Category:Species extinction caused by human activities read better? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category:Extinct species caused by human activities would be better. Species extinction suggests a process but the category will list the species themselves. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, I was expecting to see sub-cats by hunting, pollution etc. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Species made extinct by human activities. The articles are for species, but human activities did not cause the species, they caused it to attain its current status, so neither of the previous suggestions are grammatically suitable.- choster (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Species made extinct by human activities per above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Species made extinct by human activities. Choster has a point -- using "extinct species caused by human activities" would be confusing since "X by Y" in category names usually refers to cases where X is subcategorized by Y (eg. People by occupation). "Species made extinct by human activities" is a little wordy, but has the advantage of making the purpose of the category unambiguous. Jafeluv (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2011 (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. Clearly part of a solid category tree.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant category, as every single album contained in the category is a ZZ Top album.RadioKAOS (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlikely to be expandable outside of ZZ Top albumsCurb Chain (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since he produced exclusively for ZZ Top. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He produced albums by other artists including Point Blank (1976 album) by Point Blank (band), which has been added to the category. Cjc13 (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – (a) it's in a different category tree: Category:Albums by producer; (b) some ZZ Top albums were not produced by Ham (eg Mescalero (album)); (c) Cjc13 is correct. Occuli (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Tourism in Turkey by province to Category:Economy of Turkey

Nominator's rationale: English speaking Turkish editors have consistently tried to use articles, and now categories, for WP:SPAM purposes. Note that articles contained, except for the promotional Blue Cruise are places, not article about "Tourism in places." In other words a WikiTravel-type categories and articles. Renaming to Economy would force editors to reconsider spamming articles and hopefully move to a venue with a lower barrier to spam like a .com site. Student7 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the subcats are named as visitor attractions et al. where they would be more properly removed as they aren't just visitor attractions but archaeological sites as well et al..Curb Chain (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tourism is very important for Turkey. This category has evolvability, and will be like Category:Tourism in the United States by state. We have to compare with categories related with cities and provinces. For example, Category:Tourism in Ankara is related with the city of Ankara, but Ankara Province is very large (with same reasons, we need Category:Tourism in Konya Province, Category:Tourism in Adana Province, Category:Tourism in Mersin Province, Category:Antalya Province etc.... but I doubt whether Category:Istanbul Province is necessary or not. See. Istanbul and Istanbul Province). So Category:Tourism in Turkey by province is necessary as main category　of them. Takabeg (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see the nominators reasoning - but the precedence issue is well worth considering - why has it not been done for all other countries as well, why just turkey - I say keep unless the nominator is doing this globally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tourism_by_country - if youre changing one - then why not the rest???) - then it might have some context - to focus on one country is lacking the big picture Satu Suro 01:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep and create subcats at every level named 'Tourist attractions in foo' as this is what the underlying articles are: attractions. Help out the Turkish editors if you see some help is needed. Deleting is not helpful. Hmains (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we had tourism on turkish topics, this category would be fine. It should be deleted until such articles appear.Curb Chain (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rule is not that there has to actually be articles, but that they could exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can create such a category (tree) when such articles exist. As such, we don't have categories (trees) for every polity that exists.Curb Chain (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Per all the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I see no problem whatever with the scheme. Occuli (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2011 (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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: First off, there is no main article. Secondly, it so happens that all of these articles are video game console launches, so these could probably be upmerged into Category:History of video games or somesuch. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 12 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tourism in Turkey to [[:Category:]]

Nominator's rationale: "Tourism" as described is basically WP:SPAM. The only thing differentiating this topic from WikiTravel is renaming it into an encyclopedic category. Rename or move or merge to "Economy of Turkey" Student7 (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the subcats are named as visitor attractions et al. where they would be more properly removed as they aren't just visitor attractions but archaeological sites as well et al..Curb Chain (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tourism is very important for Turkey. This category has evolvability, and will be like Category:Tourism in the United States by state. Takabeg (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tourism in X is an accepted format in many countries on wp - basically an established pattern - I see no reason why any one country should be removed if all the others remain - bad practice to do so - as in effect the whole of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tourism_by_country is being put up to question - and I would think this nomination is not in the right place to do such a questioning Satu Suro 01:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is doing no such thing: The entries are simply not articles about tourism.Curb Chain (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep This category is fully populated in the same manner as are all other 'tourism in foo' categories. Hmains (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – how can a category be spam? If articles are or contain spam then they can be edited; if inappropriate articles are added they can be removed. An archaeological site may also be also a visitor attraction. Rather a baffling nom. Occuli (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2011 (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: upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Novels by parameter to Category:Novels

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This category by User:Stefanomione groups some -- but not all -- of the "parameters" by which novels are grouped by sub-cat atop the parent Category:Novels. It only succeeds in adding a confusing split for readers on where to find novels by foo categories, apparently all for the sake of building his nascent 'Foo by parameter' tree. (and every category with an intersection in it has an "x" defined by a "y" parameter of some kind, does it not?) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/upmerge This is exactly why we have "X by Y" categories--to be the main subcats. of large category schemes. Creating a subcategory for those subcategories defeats the purpose. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Justin. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Stefanomione (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Where is Category:Paradigms by parameter when you need it? Occuli (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2011 (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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete/upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Somewhat similar to my argument at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_10#Category:Categories_by_association (though less a blatant case) this grouping of categories by "paradigm" is too vague and abstract a grouping to be of much practical help in finding articles, I believe. The main article Paradigm states that in its broad sense, it is "a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind." Accordingly, we see everything from Chefs by style to Categories by religion. It does not make for a coherent category, imo, and is one more branch of Category:Categories by parameter that I think we can do without. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not one of S's. This is quite splendidly pretentious, and begs the double subcat scheme Category:Categories by paradigm and parameter. Occuli (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title is not useful and the membership is arbitrary. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a useful type of category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paradigms are on-a-continuum, fluid and hard to categorize.Curb Chain (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2011 (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: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Native American military personnel to Native American United States military personnel
Nominator's rationale The heading says "This category is for members of Native American tribes that served in the United States military". Yet I have already removed two categories that were in violation of this directive. One contained Native Americans in the French and Indian War, who could not have been in the US military. The other was from the American Revolution, and the first two people in it fought with British support against the American settlers in the Ohio region. Most Native Americans from Joseph Brant on down sided with the British, there are exceptions but that category was definantly not focusing on the exceptions. Since it does have legitimate subcats like the Navajo Code Talkers, I think this is a worthwhile category but it does need to be renamed so it is properly applied. I am also not convinced its contents should be limited to members of tribes, many people identify as native Americans but are not members of tribes, in some cases because of their group lacking official recognition and in other cases because of excessively restictive rules of tribe membership. I really think Van T. Barfoot should be left in the category, butr that would require removing the tribe rule. We allow all other ethnic groupings to include anyone who self-identifies as such, I see no reason to have a different criteria for being Native American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query. I see this happening a lot with categories you nominate: why don't you gain consensus for the changes and then alter the category membership to fit, rather than altering the category membership and using it as justification for the change? I see no problem with the category as it is, and I think you should restore what you removed. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The alterations I made to this category were supported by what the category header already said. My nomination of the category title is to try and keep it from reverting to the misuse of the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may be an american custom to separate the military from civilian life, but in the end, it's just an occupation, and as such, this is an excessively narrow intersection. This is also a category based on "race".Curb Chain (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is and have Lambert restore the members he deleted while trying to make the category conform to his personal idea of what it should contain. An idea which has obviously been rejected by all the other editors using this category. Create Category:Native American United States military personnel as a proper subcat of this category. There are better ways to improve WP than trying to delete everything one person does not understand or like. Most of the editorial/opinion words above are totally irrelevant to the consideration of this category. Hmains (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do as suggested by Users Roscelese and Hmains (undo edits and create this new category and make old one the supracategory). Mayumashu (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not put the rule that this category should be limited to members of the United States military. That rule existed before I did any edits. The general system is we group people by the military they served in. We do not group people in other ways. There is no one I removed from this category who belong in it. Everyone I removed either was clearly not part of the American military, that is the military of the United States of America, or the aritcle did not indicate they were Native American. I even left in people who their articles explicitly stated they were not members of a Native American tribe, when in fact I should have removed them. I was not the person who put in the heading saying these people needed to be in the United States military, so Hmains is at best misinformed by claiming I am the only person who holds this view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current category heading stating that this category is for members of the United States military has been in place since the category was created in 2007. I find it highly objectionable that people have falsely accused me of unilaterally altering the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that indicative of a problem with the heading rather than the title? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment considering the various cultures and ehtnic groups that are all arbitratily lumped together under the heading "Native American" I am not really sure that this category meets the rules of Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. I highly doubt it can meet those rules if we end the US military membership limits to this category, since it is only because these Native Americans are in some way connected with the United States that we really can argue that they are forming an ethnic group. It probably does not help that the given example of what categories we do and do not have is Category:Jewish musicians which is only sort of an ethnic group. My grandmother who was raised Jewish insists it is wrong to speak of Jewishness as other than a religion, and there are definantly Jews who insist those who convert to Christianity are no longer Jews, while I have yet to hear people claim someone stops being Armenian or Chaldean, let along African American, by changing religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No Rosceles, it is indicative of the fact that people are misusing the category. Categorization by military at heart is supposed to group people by military served in, or by conflict participated in. There is no structure for grouping people by race who served in multiple militaries in multiple unrelated conflicts. That is arbitrary and unjustified grouping of people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agree w/the points made above by Rosceles. There appear, IMHO, to be issues specific to the nominations/actions of this nominator, that transcend this nomination, and I think that the suggestions by Rosceles are ones that could avoid further disruption to the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I am not sure why I point this out, but the fact of the matter is the cat was already set up to be only for US military personnel. That was a declaration of the intent of the cat from the moment it was created. People just ignored the cat heading for some reason or other. It was there, and I did not put it there. It is odd to be called a disruptor for following the instructions of the cat headings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole structure of Category:American military personnel by ethnic or national origin and its daughter cats is problematic: a quick look shows that of the literally thousands of articles on US service personnel a handful of them are African American, Jewish, and German, and then one or two Finnish, Swedish, etc. C'mon: really, in today's US army there is nothing differentiating about this detail of ethnicity among military personnel. It's just not defining: can anyone tell whether they army guy being interviewed on the evening news has a drop of Finnish blood or not? If you cannot, it's trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment The deletion comments above have little to to with the category being discussed and its current contents. Hmains (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2011 (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) 11:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Native Hawaiian military personnel
Nominator's rationale This is a subcat of Category:American military personnel by ethnic or national origin. The later category is supposed to be limited to people who served in the military of the United States of America. The problem is that 14 of the 19 people in this category were never in the military personnel of the United States of America, and at least 11 of them died before Hawaii was made part of the United States. If kept this category should be renamed Category:American military personnel of Native Hawaiian descent. There is no need to group the pre-American annexation Native Hawaiians because they were basically all members of royal or noble houses, and are properly categorized in those categorizes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep with the category and subcat changes I just made. Military personnal are military personnel regardless of their royality/nobility or lack thereof. Hmains (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with Hmains revisions this category should be renamed Category:Hawaiian military personnel. The question is now whether they were in the Hawaiian military, and so we should now include members of that military who were not Native Hawaiians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No it should not. This is part of the Native Hawaiian people cateogry structure. Hmains (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may be an american custom to separate the military from civilian life, but in the end, it's just an occupation, and as such, this is an excessively narrow intersection.Curb Chain (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this has been refurbished it should be made part of the Hawaii as a seperate nation structure. Military personnel cats should be connected with the specific military the people were in, thus there is no need to make this an ethnic category when it could more effectively be a nation military category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment above in Native American... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2011 (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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Jewish American military personnel
Delete Category:American military personnel of Finnish descent
Delete Category:American military personnel of Irish descent
Delete Category:American military personnel of German descent
Delete Category:American military personnel of Jamaican descent
Delete Category:American military personnel of Swedish descent
Nominator's rationale These categories seem to represent an attempt to categorize every possible intersect of ethnicity and occupation. The Jamiacan case is the extreme with one entry, which is Colin Powell, who is in a total of 46 categories. This just seems excessive, even for Powell. His categoring takes 8 lines at the bottom of the article. I have not nominated some of the other categories here because they need to be dealt with in different ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge to appropriate 'American of foo descent' categories and only after that is done do these categories get deleted. Hmains (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all It may be an american custom to separate the military from civilian life, but in the end, it's just an occupation, and as such, this is an excessively narrow intersection.Curb Chain (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as suggested by User:Hmains. A straight delete ignores that there is a category tree here. Mayumashu (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per my comment above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2011 (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: merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Media by source to Category:Works by source

Nominator's rationale: A ballet, surely to god, is not "media." Upmerge. (We'll just leave aside the question of how the broader media could even be a sub-category of works, in the first place). As always, we can use the sort key to arrange the works based on foo and foos by source subcats. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge They are synonymous. I'm trying to figure out if maybe "media" should mean the devices which transmit media.Curb Chain (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2011 (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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Illegitimate category. Hauntings aren't real and this encyclopedia shouldn't encourage this sort of cruft. The cat is now being spammed into Civil War battlefields. The cat isn't academic; it feeds sensationalism. Having this cat has lead to this sort of driveby adding into more academic subjects. At some point, nearly every significant historical place will have the crufty types making up stories and then declaring that they are notable.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that this is now the 3rd CfD in four months.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was only able to find the following (1 nom for this cat & 2 related cat discussions):

Prev discussion for this cat

related discussion - delete

discussion - rename

If you know of others, please link. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- That's them all, I guess. The March 30th one was a rename to the current one, where the result could have been a delete consensus, I suppose. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is an encyclopedia and as such covers all matters of human belief, however fanciful or useless. 'Reported' in the name is sufficient to suggest the information may not be scientifically proven or provable, as is the case with most beliefs and 'reports'. Hmains (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, I'm with Hmains on this one. If we started getting into what is or isn't objectively "real," man, I could see the whole religion branch coming into play in a very contentious and unproductive way, between believers and critics of various faiths, as well as atheists. We'll need to be rigorous in requiring reliable sources on places in this category, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains. However I note a list exists. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a notable characteristic and chonicallying it is not encyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a total joke. In the instances where it has been applied, absolutely no references have been offered as to who believes (or "reports", like it was some kind of serious journalist who reported it) the places are haunted (even if you believe that haunting is a real thing), with the justification that it is "only a category".--BillFlis (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains. Altairisfar (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-leaning delete hauntings are BS, reports of hauntings may not be - a list would likely be better, because of the indefiniteness of inclusion criteria: by whom reported and how specific (if a house in LA is reported to be haunted, is LA haunted? is California haunted? is the US haunted?). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia bots by name to Category:All Wikipedia bots

Nominator's rationale: All categories are sorted by name. Rather, the category name should describe what it contains: a list of all Wikipedia bots. Compare, for exmaple, Category:All user-created public domain images, which contains all the images in dated categories like Category:User-created public domain images from February 2011 in the same way as the category in question here contains all pages in the categories below Category:Wikipedia bots. Slightly pedantic, I realise that... but I am a pedant after all, and this has been bothering me for years. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got the time to dig out the guideline, but I thought Wikipedia's own categories (i.e. those intended for "internal" use only) were supposed to begin "Wikipedia..."? Maybe that's me misremembering though. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Category_names#Special_conventions (item 4) says that internal-use-only categories should be prefixed with "Wikipedia" only if there is the potential for confusion with reader-facing categories. In this case, the proposed new name still contains the word "Wikipedia", so the potential for confusion is no greater than at the old title. Good point, though - I hadn't bothered to check the guideline before you mentioned it. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. I shan't oppose, then. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, "by name" is certainly redundant and "All" is a better disambiguation from parent cat. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:28, 13 August 2011 (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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:English pleasure gardens to Category:Pleasure gardens in England

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Its parent is Category:Gardens in England so this would be more standard. Tim! (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The general rule is with things we say where they are in. English Pleasure Gardens would be fore pleasure gardens that have something English about them, and could be located anywhere. See for example Category:Mexican restaurants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2011 (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) 05:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I'm having a hard time figuring out what this category actually means. Media format is just a redirect to a disambig page for Format. The category contents to seem to me to be a dog's breakfast of dissimilar items (Black-and-white media... Broadcasting...?) that I suggest it simply be deleted. The category contents are all categorized adequately and repeatedly elsewhere. And again, we have this hodge podge of media industries like Publishing and Broadcasting with art forms like Diaporama and Mixed media. I think the only person this may make sense to is User:Stefanomione, at best. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category was not well thought out when made. I suggest asking the creator what he meant. "Format" simply means to many things and is overcategorization. These are the reasons for deletion.Curb Chain (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stefanomione (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2011 (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) 05:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Thurber Prize for American Humor winners
Nominators rationale The general guidelines for wikipedia discorage most award winner categories, without giving any guidance on what types of award winner cats might not constitute overcategorization. In the case of this category it is not clear that this is the premiere award in the field, and that winners of this award would not have won other awards that would get them categorized. It seems that this cat just invites a lot more similar cats which will get people classed in all sorts of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2011 (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) 05:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Carnegie Medal of Heroism recipients
Nominator's rationale Wikipedia guidelines discorage most categories of reciepients of awards. I do not see any reason that this category should be an excelption to that guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2011 (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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Jacob's Award winners
Nominator's rationale Wikipedia guidelines discourage most award categories as being an example of overcategorization. I do not see why these awards should be an exception to that rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this may be "dicouraged" by the guidelines, there are nevertheless many dozens (if not hundreds) of categories of award winners, and there appears to be no justifiable reason to single this one out for deletion. Davshul (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the guidelines, I would say people need to explain a reson to single this one out for inclusion. If we generally do not allow such than that means there needs to be a good reason to have the awards categories we do have. Davshul explains no reason why we should keep this category, other than I did not nominate all of them. That is horrible reasoning, I nomiated two others which he did not comment on, for reasons that I do not understand. As it is many of the award cats have been discussed and an agreement was reached to keep them, while many others have been deleted. The reasons to keep or delete awards cats are specific to those awards, so I think that defenders of an award cat should offer some reason for that award cat, not the mere fact we have some. The fact we have Category:Noble Prize winners does not mean we have to have Category:Michigan Teacher of the Year winners. Those are the extremes. However nothing about this award seems to make it exceptionally special or likely to be the top award most notable people who win it get, so it seems having it will just lead to overcat. It does not help there is no explanation of what sort of award categories are acceptable, so it seems the basic assumption is an award category is not, and them people need to explain some reason for a particular award category being an exception. The assumption is they should not be here unless people explain why they should. There being other award cats does not cut it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2011 (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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Jewish actors
Nominators rationale if this is not a justified category for people at a national level, I see no reason to have this as a huge-world wide cat. If American Jewish actors are not a justified cat, than this is not a justified cat. Alternately if we keep this cat, I see no reason to not allow nation-specific subcats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC) + *Nominators rationale If we do not allow for sub-national cats of this I see no reason why we should allow this cat. On the other hand, if we keep this I see no justified reason to ban Category:American Jewish singers. The current system only seems logical if we want to make it increase the number of cats individual people are put in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the bigger scheme of Category:Actors by ethnicity and Category:Jews by occupation. Lugnuts (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC) + *Keep as part of the bigger scheme of Category:Jews by occupation. Lugnuts (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we keep it will we allow it to be split on nationality? On what grounds can someone be classed as a Jewish actor, but not be so classed by their nationality as well, such as American Jewish actors, British Jewish actors, German Jewish actors etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep per Lugnuts. John's question, about whether this category can be further broken down long national lines, is itself an argument for deleting this one, I don't think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I meant to say "is itself not...", but I think my meaning was clear anyway. That said, per the oppose below, John's work is not focused on deleting Jewish categories and his college of choice is immaterial. If anything, he probably doesn't realize what a minefield he's stepped into by simply raising this issue, as he is entitled to do.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judaism is a religious view and is also considered an ethnic identity. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep We've been here countless times before. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I asked a question, I did not propose it as a reason to delete. I was hoping someone would actually try to answer my question. I guess I assume too much in thinking that "Categories for discussion" will involve discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposition up there says delete.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Per all of the above keeps. Curiously poor nomination, which appears to be part of the Brigham Young graduate's focus on deleting mentions of Jews, per his most recent activities. Clear keep -- not even close.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of well-organized structures for a characteristic that is widely used as a defining one for the individuals included. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My comment immediately before Shawn in Montreal's comment consists of a question about qplitting this category. As it is this category has been deleted as a nationality specific one, that is Category:Jewish American actors. So Obviously some people have thought that the conjunction of Jews and actors is not always notable. It would really help if people read what other say, and it would help even more if people did not make false accusaitons. Deleting this category will remove Zero references to Jews. If the person is a Jew that will be said in the article, and after deleting the category it will still say so in the article. Deleting this category is not going to remove references to people being Jewish so Epeefleche is making accusations that are not true.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Or something like that. I am not sure. I have decided this will not accomplish my goal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's withdrawn will some uninvolved admin close this thing???? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2011 (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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Jewish singers
Nominators rationale If we do not allow for sub-national cats of this I see no reason why we should allow this cat. On the other hand, if we keep this I see no justified reason to ban Category:American Jewish singers. The current system only seems logical if we want to make it increase the number of cats individual people are put in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Jews by country and Category:Ashkenazi Jews topics. Judaism is considered an ethnicity and therefore deserves its own category due to that, because that makes it of interest to other Jewish people, and people interested in researching Jewish culture.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the bigger scheme of Category:Jews by occupation. Lugnuts (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we keep it, will we allow it to be split by nationality? If it can not be so split, why not?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judaism is a religious view and is also considered an ethnic identity. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still waiting for anyone to explain why this cat is allowed, but it is not allowed to be seperated by nationality, and when I try making seperations by nationality they are unilaterally deleted with no discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep per Lugnuts. John's question, about whether this category can be further broken down long national lines, is itself an argument for deleting this one, I don't think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I meant to say "is itself not", but I think my meaning was clear anyway. That said, per the oppose below, John's work is not focused on deleting Jewish categories and his college of choice is immaterial. If anything, he probably doesn't realize what a minefield he's stepped into by simply raising this issue, as he is entitled to do.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While his choice of college is no consequence here, I think people have noticed he does focus on certain minority groups, and it's something that starts to turn into less of a simple irritation and more of a complicated issue of bias. For about a week he was focused on deleting women of color categories, let alone women's categories. This might not be an issue you have noticed, but by reading his discussion page I see that other people have noticed these things, and they are not happy with them. Epeefleche makes a very good point, and it's something worth taking note. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women are the majority of the population, they are not a minority. I focus on trying to get categories to agree with policy and guidelines. I would also point out that I have nominated a large number of "Fooian male singers" categories for deletion, so I think the howling has to do with people's focusing on their own pet categories, as opposed to studying the whole number of nominations I have made.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In most societies, women are a sociological minority group even if they are numerically a majority. As it says in minority group: "A sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority — it may include any group that is subnormal with respect to a dominant group in terms of social status, education, employment, wealth and political power. To avoid confusion, some writers prefer the terms 'subordinate group' and 'dominant group' rather than 'minority' and 'majority', respectively." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just as Good Ol’factory has pointed out, women are a social minority. I don't like to use the word "minority," but for lack of any other word, I must use it. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep We've been here countless times before. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are people assuming my question is anything but a question? Also why do people not respond to my question. Also, as it is the national subcats lead to unilateral speedy delete, so why we have this cat when by nationality sub cats are unilaterally deleted is a good question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Per all of the above keeps. Curiously poor nomination, which appears to be part of the Brigham Young graduate's focus on deleting mentions of Jews, per his most recent activities. Clear keep -- not even close.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of well-organized structures for a characteristic that is widely used as a defining one for the individuals included. Alansohn (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice if people would not accuse others of sinister motives. I am still waiting for someone to explain why this category should not be subdivided by nationality. The silence on that question is deafening.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your question above. Jewish people are divided by nationality. Category:Jews by country and Category:Ashkenazi Jews topics.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I have decided this will not accomplish my goal. I am finding it quite interesting how many people engage in personal attacks though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one has engaged in personal attacks. I've noticed a lot of times people on WP claim that any criticism is a personal attack. A personal attack is insulting you, threatening you, harassing you, etc. Pointing out that you have focused on certain groups is not a personal attack. It's an observation.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment bringing up where someone recieved their education and acting as it is a sign that the person is part of some sinister plot is a personal attack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Quite a string of efforts by this nom to delete material by the nom relating to Jews, I notice (and as was reflected at his AN/I and on his talkpage). Curious given his background which he displays on his talkpage. I hope POV is not interfering w/equal application of wp's rules in these deletion efforts. That is not, as nom suggests, a personal attack. He is no doubt a fine person. He is however indicating that he belongs to a church, and focusing on deleting all manner of mentions of Jews across the Project. We call that quacking. Assumption of good faith is a rebuttable presumption. When he also, as he has (as reflected at his AN/I) at the same time creates articles on his fellow church members (and alma mater alumni) with zero references, it is indicative of a possible problem.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2011 (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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Former British Darts Organisation Players to Category:British Darts Organisation players

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Sportspeople are not categorized by current and former status, so this category for former players in the BDO can be upmerged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge We do not categorize sportspeople who was or weren't.Curb Chain (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge we do not have seperate cats fro former and current people in specific fields, occupations or with specific organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Impossible upkeep of category, and it is better served by a pre-existing navbox (((HorizonLeagueBB))). I would like to point out this previous CfD as a relevant discussion which shows precedent with these types of categories. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't a category that needs upkeep as it's not "current" women's basketball coaches. Thus, it differs from the previous CfD. The pre-existing navbox (((HorizonLeagueBB))), however, is for current women's basketball coaches in the Horizon League and thus does not have a duplicitous purpose. City boy77 (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The category mentioned in the nominator's rationale, "Category: Current Alabama Crimson Tide football players", was merged into "Category: Alabama Crimson Tide football players." Thus, it follows that a category called "Current Horizon League women's basketball coaches" (which would be unacceptable because of maintenance problems) should be merged into the category being discussed. The current category should not be deleted.City boy77 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Horizon League coaches notable to be grouped as such? Nothing really. It's completely unnecessary over-categorization. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, being a coach in a specific conference is a happenstance and coincidental characteristic they just happen to share, not a defining characteristic that ties them together. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no standard in place for categories that group college coaches by conference. In well-developed areas such as football, baseball, and men's basketball, coaches are grouped at the team level and then those team categories are grouped at the national level with no intermediate categories for conferences or divisions. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - women's college hoops cats should match the more established men's. I'm all for school women's coach categories (eg "Category:Boston College Eagles women's basketball coaches") but why do this at the conference level? I just don't think the category is that useful, and gets less so over time as schools switch conference affiliation. Rikster2 (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentJweiss11 and Rikster2, your comments make a lot of sense and are helpful. As someone who is still learning about wikipedia categories, I really appreciate you explaining not only that this category is inappropriate, but also why it is and what would be better. I say go ahead and delete. City boy77 (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jweiss11 and Rikster2. Consider, as an example of a fully-developed tree, John Calipari. Obviously, he is in Category:Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball coaches, which, in turn is in Category:Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball -- a subcategory of Category:Southeastern Conference men's basketball, and in Category:Kentucky Wildcats coaches which is in Category:Kentucky Wildcats which is in Category:Southeastern Conference teams. Or, moving down through the category tree, one can go from conference to school to team to team coaches, or from conference to sport to team to team coaches. The functionality is already there -- once the category tree is developed. cmadler (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split the contents to their specific school/team. delete this category and make the new team cats sub-divisions of their larger team cats and Category:Women's baksetball coaches in the United States by team. The fact that there is not an equivalent category Category:Horizon League men's basketball coaches indicates that this cat is not a regular way to classify college football coaches. We classify by specific team, which we then group nationaly by sport and also we group all teams at the same college or univeristy together. The articles and categories for the teams overall are sometimes put under the categories on the various legues, but even Category:Big Ten Conference Football does not have a category for the coaches.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the people in this category are already categorized as coaches of their specific team, so there is no reason to have this category at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2011 (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) 05:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as an essentially empty category. Its sole subcat Category:Journals about newspaper publishing is adequately categorized (though possibly in need of an upmerge itself). Its sole article is List of fictional newspapers, following a pattern where User:Stefanomione will at times categorize a Wikipedia article or category as "media," as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stefanomione (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2011 (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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers by format to Category:Newspaper formats

Nominator's rationale: This User:Stefanomione category doesn't follow his usual rationale for his "foo by foo" categories, in that it doesn't list subcategories at all. It groups Newspaper formats only and so should be renamed accordingly, if kept. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename It lists types of newspapers, not newpapers that fall into these categories.Curb Chain (talk) 04:37, 12 August 2011 (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.

August 12

Category:Extinct species by human activities

Category:Albums produced by Bill Ham

Category:Tourism in Turkey by province

Category:Product launches

Category:Tourism in Turkey

Category:Novels by parameter

Category:Verband der Wissenschaftlichen Katholischen Studentenvereine Unitas

Category:Categories by paradigm

Category:Native American military personnel

Category:Native Hawaiian military personnel

Category:ethnic American military personnel

Category:Media by source

Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States

Category:Wikipedia bots by name

Category:English pleasure gardens

Category:Media by format

Category:Thurber Prize of American Humor winners

Category:Carnegie Medal of Heroism recipients

Category:Jacob's Award Winners

Category:Jewish actors

Category:Jewish singers

Category:Former British Darts Organisation Players

Category:Horizon League women's basketball coaches

Category:Media about newspapers

Category:Newspapers by format