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) 00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who attempted suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I'm uncomfortable with having this as a category, particularly on BLPs. I've taken a look at some of the articles in the category, and while most (not all!) of them mention a suicide attempt in the article, it's not always clear that it's a particularly significant aspect of that person's life. Without wishing to appear insensitive, I have to ask: is attempting suicide a notable/significant characteristic? We don't have categories for 'people who had heart attacks', 'people who suffered strokes', or 'people involved in car accidents'; this might be considered equivalent to those. Unlike those, it also raises verifiability issues: what's an acceptable source for stating that a person has attempted suicide? Is a claim from the person in question sufficient? What about a statement from medical professionals/the police? Ultimately, I just feel this is a bad idea for a category, and we'd be better off without it. (I distinguish it from Category:Suicides, which is unarguably a useful categorisation.) Robofish (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought, I suppose we do have Category:People convicted of attempted murder, which could be considered equivalent to this category; but it has much clearer inclusion criteria, since it's a 'people convicted of' category and not Category:Attempted murderers. The latter would, I suggest, be a bad category. Robofish (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that many people are uncomfortable talking about suicide, but I think that there's a place for this category. As always, BLP rules apply and the information needs to be sourced, if it's not remove the article from the category. We do have categories for survivors of other kinds of things (i.e. Category:Cancer survivors ) and I don't feel that this is significantly different. The standard BLP verifiability issues apply. In response to the is attempting suicide a notable/significant characteristic? argument, it's the articles' subject (not each individual fact) that needs to be notable, the facts just need to be referenced and related to the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I too have misgivings about this category and its subcategories. I'm not sure totally sure what the right solution is, but I think deletion of the categories may be appropriate for the reasons Robofish sets out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – while I share the general misgivings, Sarah Ann Henley seems to fit perfectly in this category. Occuli (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am glad that the corresponding category was deleted from the Russian Wikipedia yesterday, and I am also glad to find out this matter is being discussed here. Hopefully this category will be removed as absolutely non-notable. --Garik 11 (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If the information is valid, but the category is problematic, then it should be listified. Some strange comments in list AFDs recently, however, have advanced the view that categories are somehow less problematic for BLP issues than lists, notwithstanding the ability of a list to directly source and annotate the statement of fact supporting the entry's inclusion, and notwithstanding years of practice to the contrary. postdlf (talk) 00:58, 15 January 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Netherlands in World War II to Category:Netherlands in World War II

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name). Tim! (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The name of the state is "The Netherlands" (or more precisely Kingdom of the Netherlands), not "Netherlands". It is never without the definite article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Per the cited convention, it is always without the article when it begins a category name, as with Category:Netherlands, Category:Netherlands stubs, Category:Netherlands-related lists, and numerous others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and per Good Ol’factory. If an editor dislikes the convention, they should open a group nom for Category:Netherlands and all the subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 10 January 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian LGBT-related actors to Category:Indian LGBT actors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe the "-related" is unnecessary. A person is an "LGBT actor", not an "LGBT-related actor". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent Category:LGBT actors. Alansohn (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Support per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per past consensus against subcategorizing LGBT actors by country. Bearcat (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me as nominator. I wasn't aware of a previous consensus to that effect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:33, 12 January 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Empty categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant with Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not at all. These categories haven't necessarily been nominated and may have been emptied in error. Rich Farmbrough, 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Strong oppose – These are empty categories that have not been nominated for deletion. Not at all redundant. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can evisage circumstances where we have empty categories that are not awaiting deletion. _wjemather^bigissue 10:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excluding maintenance categories which are handled differently, exactly what are you envisioning? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only categories which populate this one are those which have templates that will add this category automatically when they are empty. The one's I've experienced are those created by Rich Farmbrough for ((Albums category)) and ((Album label category)). I don't know if there are other similar templates. However, there may be an issue with the templates because, while I see this category within the category that is empty, I don't see the category within Category:Empty categories until the ((db-c1)) is placed in the empty category, which then is redundant to Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. No vote here, but a request for those who want to keep this to better define the nominated category's usefulness as a maintenance tool. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's category lag, which some change in mid 2010 seems to have made much worse. However they will appear eventually. Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Strong keep. Sadly, many empty categories are in that state because they were depopulated out-of-process. We need this categ a way of categorising those categs which are empty but not awaiting deletion, and while it's a pity that it may not currently be used as much as it should be, that's no reason to delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Keep, obviously. However, many of the categories on this page or in the subcategories of this page do need deletion (and I'll go and zap a few right away!). Fram (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Now that I've thought about it, isn't this a case of putting the cart before the horse? I understand the reasoning for it, but it serves no purpose until a designed template is required to be added to all categories so it will show up if they are emptied out of process. Two templates that do this (that I know of) have been introduced but few know about them, their addition is not standard procedure, and they aren't being uniformly accepted. I doubt anyone would manually add the nominated category because it's empty; they'd use the speedy deletion template for empty categories. All I'm saying is to give it a reason to exist, find consensus for its use, and not just accept it because it seems like a good idea. When that happens, then it will be worth keeping. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are automatically added to Category:Empty categories when they get empty. The category allows editors to see which categories are empty. People use it to find categories to nominate for speedy deletion or to re-populate them. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't unless they have one of Rich Farmbrough's magical templates. He created this category when he created those templates before consensus on their use was formed. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator apparently doesn't understand the least about Wikipedia maintenance. This nomination should have been speedily declined. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not the nominator, but what does maintenance have to do with something that doesn't have a defined functionality? Only one person is even creating categories that utilize its functionality and on a limited basis with flawed and not-yet-accepted templates. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:17, 15 January 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 to category:Province of Córdoba (Spain) to match the main article. If all Spanish categories are to be renamed to Foo province form, then the articles should be renamed first. Ruslik_Zero 15:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Córdoba (Spanish province) to Category:Córdoba Province (Spain)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use noun instead of adjective, like Category:Jaén Province (Spain), Category:Cuenca Province (Spain). Disambiguation by country is needed because there is Category:Córdoba Province (Argentina). Note also that Córdoba Province is a valid proper name in English, "Córdoba" is only the short form. Also use the form that is the widespread one for all other articles about provinces in the Spanish-language world. TopoChecker (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but to Category:Province of Córdoba (Spain) per the article Province of Córdoba (Spain). (Nearly all the articles at the top level of Category:Provinces of Spain are of form 'Province of XXX', so harmonisation with their respective categories would be a good idea.) Occuli (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong agree with the idea of harmonization.
  • The thing is that 1) the form 'Province of XXX' was established only in Dec 2009 and w/o discussion, 2) all other articles and categories in the Spanish-speaking world use 'XXX Province'. So it seems the best is to follow the established naming for the rest of the Spanish-speaking world, which is also the established naming for articles from the Portuguese-speaking world.
  • The relevant articles and categories in the tree Category:Provinces by country are: Category:Provinces of Argentina, Category:Provinces of Bolivia, Category:Provinces of Chile, Category:Provinces of Colombia, Category:Provinces of Gran Colombia, Category:Provinces of Costa Rica, Category:Provinces of Cuba, Category:Provinces of the Dominican Republic, Category:Provinces of Ecuador, Category:Provinces of Equatorial Guinea, Category:Provinces of Panama, (no categories within Category:Provinces of Peru, Category:Provinces of the Spanish Empire), Category:Provinces of Venezuela. Same Wikipedia naming convention for linguistically and/or geographically related Portuguese language items apply to Category:Provinces of Portugal, Category:Provinces of Angola, Category:Provinces of Mozambique.
  • The only ones that are not consistent with the rest of the Spanish-speaking world are those from Spain. TopoChecker (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is gl:Provincia de Córdoba ... I don't particularly see why we should insist upon consistency within the Spanish-speaking world when we allow inconsistency in the English-speaking one. Anyway, the procedure would be to rename the articles first and then the categories. Occuli (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: What has gl:Provincia de Córdoba to say for English Wikipedia? There is also: eu:Kordobako probintzia. There is a difference for inconsistency between English-speaking world provinces and between Spanish-speaking world. For English the source language is used directly, for Spanish a translation is used. The Spanish sources all use the same format, so why should the English translation then differ? TopoChecker (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if the province is called 'Provincia de Córdoba' in Spain, it seems to me that the obvious title for English wikipedia is 'Province of Córdoba' (regardless of what may or may not be used in Argentina or Portugal). Just get the articles moved without dissent and the categories can then follow easily - you're doing this the wrong way round. Occuli (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agree for process, just don't see that Galician or Spanish word order should have any effect for English Wikipedia article titles. TopoChecker (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Province of Córdoba (Spain) to match Province of Córdoba (Spain), its main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 10 January 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Articles about multiple people to Category:Groups of people

Nominator's rationale: It's a much more sensible name really, shorter too. McLerristarr | Mclay1 17:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There are many articles in this category which are about just 2 people. I wouldn't call 2 people a group of people. "Multiple" covers these as well. Mhiji 01:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mhiji. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 13 January 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: go ahead. No one seems to object. But lowercase "missionaries," please.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose New Category Category:Medical Missionaries

Nominator's rationale: No category exists. The there is a growing interest in global health and interest in international medical volunteerism and medical toursim. Closest related categories are based on religion Category:Christian missionaries or nationality of physician Category:Physicians by nationality There is growing knowledge about medical missionaries like Albert Schweitzer, Paul Farmer that are outside of religion and nationality which are the current sub-categories for medicine and missionaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.128.68 (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a proposal to create the category? If so, it should be Category:Medical missionaries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- No objection to the principle. This is a major category of missionaries, and thus a notable intersection, but it should be Category:Medical missionaries. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 10 January 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by era from California to Category:People by era in California

• Category:People by era from Pennsylvania to Category:People by era in Pennsylvania
• Category:People by era from Virginia to Category:People by era in Virginia

Nominator's rationale: Make all subcategories of Category:American people by time period by state of uniform format ie People by era in XXX.

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) 00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Norwegian World War II history to Category:Norway in World War II

Nominator's rationale: Merge. None of the other national subcategories of Category:World War II by country have separate categories like this one. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support And some articles eg on Operations should go into the subcategory Category:Military history of Norway during World War II Hugo999 (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that some of these articles/subcats belong in Category:Military history of Norway during World War II, I think it wouldn't be a problem for you to fix that now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom.Tim! (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. __meco (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nom. The nom will need to do the recategorisation manually. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 10 January 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationalle: To be consistant with the World War II categories, where this naming scheme was chosen at this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per nom. Marcus Qwertyus 10:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• REname to match WWII categories, e.g. Norway see CFD on this page. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 10 January 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, at least for now. This is only to bring it in line with the other categories, and should not prejudge a more global nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administritive note: Subsequent to this discussion, a wider nomination was made of the categories which this was renamed to match, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 17#Tornadoes and hurricanes in the United States by state, and the category was renamed back as a result. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tornadoes in Hawaii to Category:Hawaii tornadoes

Nominator's rationale: This category should be renamed to match the de facto standards for subcategories of Category:Tornadoes in the United States by state. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom to match all its sibling categories as stated aboveHmains (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I think the sibling categories should be renamed to this patern. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am neutral on this, but if the rename does not go ahead, All sibling categories need to be renamed to match this one. That would have dome merit. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have every intention of doing this, and did ever since I saw this nomination (before that, I was unaware of that naming patern). However, it should definitely wait until this nomination is closed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination is now ready to go live as soon as this (and the next, which happens to be related, however the outcome) discussion is closed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Tornadoes in X is much better and it is the others that need to be brought into line. _wjemather^bigissue 17:50, 10 January 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, though this should have no bearing on the nomination of all the Tornadoes by state categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Washington, D.C. tornadoes to Category:District of Columbia tornadoes

Nominator's rationale: To fit within the scheme of categories in Category:Tornadoes in the United States by state, this category should probably be renamed since the District of Columbia is basically the equivalent of the "state name" and Washington the city name. Also, District of Columbia is the official name for the area, as stated in Washington, D.C. ("formally the District of Columbia"). Further reasoning for the rename is that the article List of District of Columbia tornadoes is named as such. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (1) state name equivalency (2) Washington has not historically been coterminous with DC, and (3) the current Washington is not coterminous with those parts of DC that were retroceded to Virginia. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• do not rename rename the main article which is out of sync. Nearly all the Category:Washington, D.C. categories are named in the pattern of 'Washington, D.C.' regardless whether they are in a 'states of the US' category. This is not the way to change an entire category tree, which I would argue against anyway. Hmains (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename, D.C. is not a state so should it even be in that category? Marcus Qwertyus 05:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the purposes of that scope, yes, it should, because for the purposes of weather statistics it has equal status with a state. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – All the other categories and articles have the name as Washington, D.C. McLerristarr | Mclay1 17:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- It is long-established that WP always uses "Washington, D.C." Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 10 January 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) 00:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ExxonMobil sponsorships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:AT&T sponsorships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:BP sponsorships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Coca-Cola sponsorships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Ford sponsorships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:McDonald's sponsorships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:PepsiCo sponsorships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Royal Dutch Shell sponsorships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation. Category itself is poorly defined, there is no explanation in the category, or ExxonMobil article, or on any of the articles contained within that I saw when taking a sample, on the reason or effect of these sponsorships. It is in effect an obscure and almost random list of articles with a largely unexplained connection. It is verging on trivia. Falcadore (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition. Adding all other sponsorship by corporation subcategory since there was no disagreement to add. Patken4 (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. All these cats are useful or none of them are. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks to be for events, television shows, and motor racing/sports teams that are currently or were at one time sponsored by ExxonMobil or one of its subsidiaries. For the events, EM is/was the title sponsor (Qatar ExxonMobil Open, Mobil 1 12 Hours of Sebring, Esso Golden Tournament, etc) for the most part. For the television shows, EM sponsored the shows on US public television for years or are the title sponsor of the show. For the teams, sometimes they are the title or main sponsor (Stewart Haas Racing, Blue Bulls), some aren't. I would say it should be kept since there are connections between them, even if it could be paired down to situations where EM is the title/main sponsor (I added the subcategory to a lot of articles and for some of the sports teams, they are only a secondary sponsor). If you agree with this, I'll revert my changes on those they are the secondary sponsor. Keep in mind, User:RevelationDirect created 13 of these subcategories for various companies, such as Category:Coca-Cola sponsorships. Patken4 (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment While there may be connections between these articles they are not made apparent in either the main article or in the categorised articles. And it does not make the category notable. And that there are 13 other categories may just additionally suggest that there needs to be 13 other CfD's. It is still a semi-random collection of articles of which the notablility has not been established anywhere. --Falcadore (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background: The Category:Sponsorships category tree predates me. I created a majority (not all) of the sub-cats and none of the articles.RevelationDirect (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "connections" aren't there? The official name of the 12 Hours of Sebring is "Mobil 1 12 Hours of Sebring". The article is called 12 Hours of Sebring because that is the common name. There is a link to the Mobil 1 article in the infobox. As for the notability of the articles, what specifically are you referring to? Patken4 (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just because I created a cat doesn't mean I get to dictate how it's used. But, the intent of the category was to include articles who are at least partially defined by the sponsorship, either as the primary sponsor or with naming rights. The last game of the Philadelphia Eagles had an Exxon commercial. It would be silly to include the team here though. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your situation, that would be incorrect to add the subcategory to either the Eagles, their opponent's, or the NFL's article. All Exxon did was happen to buy airtime from the television channel. If the NFL were to allow shirt sponsorship and EM were to become their shirt sponsor, then adding the subcategory to their article would be appropriate. Patken4 (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Purge: As the creator of the cat, I have to agree with Falcadore that this has become almost a random groupings of articles. But, sponsorships are a valid way to sub-group articles for large corporations just like corporate divisions and corporate people are. For a good example of what this cat used to look like, take a look at Category:AT&T sponsorships. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do fail to see how though that this, and it's sister-categories - will not subsequently become indiscriminate trivia magnets. I fail to see what exactly the categories achieve, other than to make a trivial list. --Falcadore (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falcadore, since I work mostly with corporate/organizational cats, I want to make sure I haven't gone off the rails because that would have Hike796-like consequences with cleanup. There seems to be a prima facia agreement that the Category:People by company subject tree is notable. Sponsorships largely represent the public face of a brand so I thought the pre-existing Category:Sponsorships had a similar consensus. (These groups are completely analgous; many more companies have enough articles to populate a people sub-cat than a corporate one.) Based on that, I created several sub-cats to group sponsorships but they were typically already under the general corporate cat when I found them. What would establish the notability of sponsorships fo ryou? Are you suggesting that we upmerge Mobil Economy Run to Category:ExxonMobil or remove it from the subject tree entirely? RevelationDirect (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from Wikipedia:Categorization

Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features. Examples of types of categories which should not be created can be found at Wikipedia:Overcategorization.

Sponsorship is not a defining characteristic for an event. By its own definition 'sponsorship' supports events. A defining characteristic for the Germany Grand Prix would be motor racing, Formula 1 and Germany primarily. Categories based on event sponsorship fall direct into Wikipedia:Overcategorization I believe.

What would establish the notability of sponsorships? In my belief there are none. There category is unrecoverable. Sponsorship by its definition supports an event, it cannot define it. --Falcadore (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've cleaned up the category and an added an explanation. Patken4 (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually favor pruning further. Sure, the French Grand Prix was previouslyh sponsored for 6 years out of 102, but, to WJemather's point, that seems to be a relatively passing involvement that is not current nor defining. Compare that to the creation and long-term involvement with Mystery!RevelationDirect (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Took out French GP, but kept German GP since they were the sponsor for 20 years. That seemed like a significant period of time. If others disagree, I'll take it out of there as well. Patken4 (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knocked out 2 more articles. I now stand by this cat as it currently exists for the sponsorship being defining. For these cats to be trivia magnets, I think we need more than one getting over-populated and then quickly corrected over the course of a year.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category is more like a promotional marketing tool than an aid to navigation. Grouping things sponsored by company X constitutes nothing more than collecting trivia, which we can well do without. Unless company X (in this case ExxonMobil) has have significant long term active involvement in something then giving undue prominence to that company in this way borders on promotion, especially given that some events/sports teams change sponsors more often than some people change their socks. Some also have countless different sponsors at the same time and is seems inappropriate to give special mention to any one over and above the others. _wjemather^bigissue 16:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is only useful for promotion or trivia, neither of which we need. Who cares if ExxconMobil sponsored an event? Surely a list category would better present this information if it is deemed encyclopedic, which I doubt. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Shouldn't all sponsorship by corporation subcategories also be added to this CfD? I'm not sure why one subcategory would be more useful or notable than another. Patken4 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The cases for and against is essentially the same. --Falcadore (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how to do it or does it need to be a separate CfD? Patken4 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Promotional" is a difficult concept here since the companies pay sponsorships at least partially to promote their companies. But, we group other articles about promotions like Category:Advertising slogans and Category:Cereal advertising characters and those don't seem to me to be promoting the promotions. The logic of deleting this cat would be that one article about a promotion (General Motors Motorama) is less promoted than another another article about a promotion (Mobil Economy Run) because one is loose in the corporate cat and another is in this sub-cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of us are of the opinion that an article like German Grand Prix does not belong anywhere in Category:ExxonMobil—either in a subcategory or "loose" in the main category. The fact that any particular company sponsors the event is simply not defining for the event, especially since sponsors for many of these events routinely change. Surely a mention in the article—or at the very most, a list of things ExxonMobil has sponsored—is more than sufficient for an encyclopedia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. I have nominated in the past a similar category structure for deletion and advocated that these sponsorship categories are principally promotional tools with incidental utility from an encyclopedic perspective. If this category goes, a number of other categories will be nominated for deletion using this CfD as precedent. __meco (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Sponsorships are ephemeral, commonly only lasting a few years. Possibly listify first. This is much too similar to a performance by performer category, though not quite as bad. The sponsor is in effect performing as an advertiser. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 10 January 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bonkers (compilation) to Category:Bonkers (compilation album series)

Nominator's rationale: Per main article (which I also moved.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: Per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Is the "compilation" disambiguation necessary? Would Category:Bonkers (album series) not be easier?

Response I renamed it per the parent category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note And the main article. Rich Farmbrough, 03:54, 11 January 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.