The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: More of the "x about y by y" stuff that User:Stefanomione has been criticized for in the past, I believe. As has been explained before, repeatedly, at CfD, we can use the sort key to top-rank genre categories for works about writers, then sort the categories for works about specific writers by their last names. This has been the solution for all his other similar categories, and should work here, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This solution couldn't work this time: the specific writers part will rise to 100-200 ... So, why not create a specific category ? Stefanomione (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that. And if you begin creating scores of such sub-categories in a way that seemsWP:POINTy, I won't hesitate to take them to CfD per smallcat; or even try to have you blocked at WP:ANI, if this starts to get out of hand, again. But even if there were such a great number of writer-subcategories, I personally don't see how splitting off another 10 or so Films about writers, books about writers, etc., would make that much difference. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remark This discussion is about organizing things, not about the content of the sub-categories (which I also created). So, let's discuss the matter calmly: I repeat, the new category will expand rapidly ... Just look at the literary criticism-categories. Stefanomione (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OCAT; not useful in any conceivable imaginings. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Shawn's rationale. Pichpich (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested, a totally counterproductive category. Also, has anyone noticed how godawful the names of the subcategories are? "Works about X and his works"...? Any chance of getting them renamed to something that doesn't contain the same word twice? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Books about information
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) 23:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename to Category:Books about information theory. I deleted one subcategory for the reason mentioned above. Stefanomione (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Information theory states that "Information theory is a branch of applied mathematics and electrical engineering involving the quantification of information." It is not the same as "public opinion," which isn't even mentioned. I must ask: do you bother to read the main articles before you cook up this stuff, or does that simply not matter to you? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway ... Rename ... to Category:Books about information gathering or processes ... Let's look for a suitable name ... The category has great potential. Discussing it will bring a solution. Stefanomione (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gathering what sort of information? What "processes"? If you expect CfD to give you a blank cheque to dream up categories when you don't seem at all clear on what's supposed to be in them, or what their names actually mean, based on your track record of late, I think you're deluding yourself. I sure won't. Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation, as I see it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss things. As you said ... Maybe there is a category to be made here. My track record (2600 categories still standing) has nothing to do with (overwhelming) arguments. Stefanomione (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not what one would expect from a category with this (or the proposed) title. Even something like "information theory" could encompass such wide swaths of "bookspace", including communications, probability, computing, cryptography, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm afraid it really is an awful title for a category. Even if renamed it would still have to wide a scope to be of use as a category. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Books about disinformation
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) 23:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: User:Stefanomione has resumed creating poorly thought out categories, unfortunately. In this case, Disinformation states in its lead that it is "intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately." That is not the case for most of the categories he has grouped under here, especially for Category:Books about tropes, which makes me wonder if Stefanomione has even bothered to read the parent article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCategory:Books about tropes has been removed but the other subcategories don't fare much better. Category:Books about mind control? Mind control is not usually understood to include propaganda or disinformation. Category:Books about media bias? Conflating media bias and disinformation seems a bit extreme since the latter supposes the intentional promotion of lies whereas the former is more typically about a bias in selecting which true stories are reported. So we're left with Category:Books about propaganda but I don't see any need for a container category. Pichpich (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've said my piece, but if I may add: in addition, the nominated category could not be a container cat for Category:Books about propaganda, since not all propaganda is "disinformation," as expressly stated in the main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't set against this cat until I looked at the contents. As currently used, I can't support keeping this. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely to be used as a POV category; why not all fringe books be dumped in this if some reliable source says they promote disinformation (and the authorities' books when the fringe books claim that' disinformation). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the category is needed to categorise books about disinformation, and the current use of the category is nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Property services companies of the United Kingdom
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. Peterkingiron's approach seems fine too, so this should not be used to prejudice against a nomination in that direction.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Estate agents as Category:Estate agents (people)
Nominator's rationale:Rename. It would be better to merge commercial and residential property companies, as many firms cover both. Although "estate agent" is the usual UK term for both individuals and firms, especially for housing, it does not cover the breadth of services provided by the larger companies. The proposed name is clearer. Rename Category:Estate agents following the precedent of Category:Publishers (people), and repurpose it for individuals and related articles e.g. television programmes. Recategorise the companies currently in the second category into the first. – Fayenatic(talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:UK Commercial Property Consultants to Category:Estate agents -- The Commercial property firms are in practice another variety of estate agent but with a concentration on the sale and letting of commercial property, rather than houses. However, there is no sharp distinction between the two. Some these firms have departments involved in each sector. The Commercial Property firms are more likely to have all senior staff qualified as Chartered Surveyors (FRICS), where as house agents may only be registered as MNAEA. There is no warrant for adding the suffix "people" to "estate agent" as the majority of the articles are in fact on firms. Traditionally, estate agents (like many professions) normally practised in partnership, rather than through a limited company. A partnership is merely a collection of induviduals trading together. It is possible that the few individuals in the category might be purged into "people" category, but I doubt it is worth it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Indian Free Agent Footballers
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) 18:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete Categories should if possible be based on permanent characteristics. There are obvious exceptions (Category:Living people) but free agency is much more trivial and much more fleeting. Moreover, free agency is not a defining characteristic. Pichpich (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Plenty of precendent here as well as Category:National Football League free agents, Category:Canadian Football League free agents and Category:Arena Football League free agents have all been deleted in previous CfDs. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or upmerge) -- Being a free agent, rather than contracted, is a temporary phenomenon. The use of a category for this is liable to require undue maintenance. Peterkingiron (talk)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Asymmetrical animal
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. A list has been created and its fate can be decided separately. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete The criterion for inclusion in this category is too vague. How much asymmetry does an animal need to qualify? I don't think this is a sound basis for classifying animals. If kept, the category should at least be renamed to something like Category:Animals featuring external asymmetry. Pichpich (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A classic example of a shared, nondefining property of utterly unrelated creatures. We have an arthropod, a fish, a mammal, a bird and (without apparent justification) sponges. They aren't even asymmetrical in the same manner. Mangoe (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Create a page instead of a category The creatures are related in that they are all in the "Animalia" Kingdom. I could see a rational in changing it from a category to a stand alone page, which would probably make more sense. As for now I'd suggest keeping it until a page is created. I'm a little busy to make it myself, but I'd support anyone who wanted to start one themselves, going with the idea of "Animals featuring external asymmetry." Stexe (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify -- The need to do so is clear from the headnote which says "This is a list"! Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Veterans Memorial bridges
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) 12:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Seems like an extra level of navigation when we only have these listed for one country. So either we delete this or someone needs to populate a series of categories to put here. Category:Memorial bridges would appear to be a good parent if this is deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only conceivable expansion would be inclusions of dams of same name, which would be OCAT by numerous precedents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think it may be worthkeeping this separate from memorial bridges. In UK, there may be cognate categories for war memorial halls and jubilee halls (built in memory of the 25th, 50th or 60th anniversary of a monarch's accession), but these may not be well-populated. My view is that the US subcategory is the unnecessary level. Alternatively we could keep the US veterans category as a direct sub-cat of Category:Memorial bridges. I am certain that we ought to delete one of these. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep Category:Veterans Memorial bridges in the United States as a subcat of Category:Memorial bridges in the United States as there seem to be enough in America to have a distinct section. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 05:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Indoor Football League Players
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 to delete; merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Speedy merge Just a capitalization issue. Pichpich (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Players shouldn't be categorized by the leagues they're in, but rather by the teams they've played for. I've gone through all the articles in this category and made sure each is categorized by all the teams they've played for, so this can be deleted without any loss of data.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All teams that these players have played for have their own categories now. To your second point, none of those categories except Category:World Football League players have individual players in them. Where categories for teams haven't been created, they can be. In fact, now that you've called it to my attention, I'll be doing that for the WFL ASAP. (Update: Done.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's nice to avoid the inclusion of individual players directly in the category. However I still think we need to keep Category:Indoor Football League players to contain the team categories. Pichpich (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. You and I were talking past each other. I want Category:Indoor Football League players to be kept as well. My delete vote was for Category:Indoor Football League Players, with the uppercase P.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta love the inefficiencies of online communication. :-) Pichpich (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Memorials and cemeteries
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Split. Based on the discussion here, it looks like splitting these is the correct way to go. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do we keep the parent categories after the split? If not, I think it would be a good idea to add ((category see also)) to allow readers to jump between the military memorials and military cemeteries categories. (Other than that, I have no objections to the split) Pichpich (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to decide if we should do all of the bottom ones and then the top, or to try and list them all. Based on your comment I have decided to add the top categories to this nomination. Category:Cemeteries already exists. So now I believe that we have the top categories nominated. I'll try and find others near the top to nominate. I have no objection to using ((category see also)). So for military cemeteries we could add something like
See also the categories Military memorials and Military monuments
DON'T CHANGE the Monuments & Memorials category. I've been studying both for about a quarter of a century and have a difficult time differentiating between the two. We would need a very easily understood way of doing that should the change go through. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have monuments and memorials so we have definitions. And yes, some things may be both. But not all of these are both. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if your statement speaks to seperation or not, but here is how our two articles begin.
"___________ is an object which serves as a focus for memory of something, usually a person (who has died) or an event."
"____________ is a type of structure either explicitly created to commemorate a person or important event."
The difference seems to be "object" vs "structure". Pretty slim pickins, if you ask me. Which you did.
Also something weird is happening at the start on I think, memorials, that heeds looking into, Carptrash (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If, for example, Lawrence Weaver were speaking of a particular object or structure when he wrote, "In earlier days, when monuments were not only honorable memorials of the dead", [1] would that be listed as a monument or a memorial? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Let's not try to count. Carptrash (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^ Weaver, Lawrence, ‘’Memorials and Monuments: Old and New: Two hundred subjects chosen from seven centuries’’, Published at the offices of “Country Life”, London, 1915 p.2
I agree that splitting off the cemeteries would be a good idea, but I'm with Carptrash on the monuments and memorials categories. Splitting those would lead to confusion. I think that names like Category:World War I monuments and memorials and Category:World War I cemeteries would work best. - Eureka Lott 05:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carptrash. I fear that this proposal will result in complications and unintended consequences. The real world is blurred; with a few exceptions, all cemeteries contain monuments. What about Monumental cemeteries, Cemetery art, or Cenotaphs? Military cemeteries typically include memorials, often to specific notable patterns, and splitting would mean that we would just end up running categories in duplicate and tie ourselves in knots.
As you still have not informed the relevant projects as I requested, I have placed references in the WP Death project]. I recommend you close this muddle of 4 (+?) proposals you have made over the last week, discussing them on the project page, and bringing back a single cogent proposal. Ephebi (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split --In UK almost every village has its war memorial, usually to the dead of both World Wars, but with no graves. Articels on them will probably be rare. Unlike USA, Britain has not habitually rematriated the bodies of its war dead, so that there are cemeteries maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission all over the world. Some cemeteries may contain a monumental memorial. Of course each grave usually has a grave stone, but we would not have articles on them. However, you can hardly expect the closing admin to undertake the split. I would suggest that you add the intended categories and then renominate, if the consensus is to split. I see no objection to a "Monuments and Memorials" category, becuase they are much the same thing, but cemeteries are different. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split "memorials" and "cemeteries" as suggested.... but Keep "monuments and memorials" - the last thing we need (or one of them) is edit-warring over whether something is a monument/memorial/both (I consider it likely that some articles would end up getting put into both categories, negating the point of the exercise). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 06:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split to Category:XXXX monuments and memorials to Category:XXXX cemeteries. As above, no point arguing what monument/memorial is as this is supposed to differentiate between a place of burials and commemorative structure. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split a monument or memorial is clearly a distinct thing from a cemetery. If an article covers something that is both, it can be put in both categories. However these are distinct things and it makes no sense to group them together.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Deadmau5 Singles
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) 02:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge It's been a longstanding convention that we don't keep separate categories for singles. Pichpich (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All contents of the former category are already in the latter.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't seem ultimately necessary, since all 8 songs in the singles category are in the songs category, along with one other song. Besides, the signles category is capitalized incorrectly, since "singles" doesn't need to be capitalized while in the name of a category. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 21:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.