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.
Oppose all. The linked discussion created an exception to the convention of Category:Television navigational boxes by country, and to the much wider convention of Category:Country templates. Extending that exception needs discussion, and preferably a much wider discussion of whether to maintain country-based template categories should retain a a consistent naming format (and what it should be). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These were originally created here through the WP:AFC project. Notifications of the attempt to speedy these were placed on the talk pages of various WP:AFC reviewers, none of which are the user who made the original request. Would it be worth notifying the original IP user of this discussion? K7L (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No reason has been offered for why television navigational box categories should be named differently to other by-country template categories. If editors want to rename the whole tree from an "[county noun] templates" to "[nationality] templates", then start at the bottom of the tree rather than slicing out chunks of it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are about the regions/countries, not linguistic or ethnic television. -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose we general use the noun form of courty names in navigation boxes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 18 October 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.
Colorado Rapids U23's
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 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:Spiders of Virginia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Do we normally classify insects by the states we find them in? This is one of those cases where classification by continent could make sense. Note that this is for states were they are found! So if I keep one on display, it can be found in the state. Note that there are red category links for some other states like Category:Spiders of California. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge back to Category:Spiders of North America. I agree with nom. While I think Virginia is a nice state but it doesn't house a unique ecosystem like the Galapagos Islands --Lenticel(talk) 01:18, 12 October 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:Images of Bruce Dickinson
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 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:Lists of Ambassadors of Russia by receiving country
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) 22:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge This category creates an unnecessary level of categorization. It's pretty telling that no other national subcategory of Category:Lists of ambassadors is organized in this way. Pichpich (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge since parent category only has this one subcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 18 October 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:Unicode compatibility characters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. It still contains only one article, and since nobody apart from the creator seems to understand what the category is for, it is unlikely to grow. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is for “redirects from individual Unicode compatibility characters”, which would make it a redundant subset of Category:Redirects from Unicode characters. There is only one article (Unicode compatibility characters) in the category, and it is not a redirect from a Unicode compatibility character. Gorobay (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, only one article for now: "Unicode compatibility characters". Nominator, read it, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it; I have even edited it. I am quite familiar with Unicode. What specifically should I be noticing? Gorobay (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Category:Redirects from Unicode characters contains thousands of redirects, and not only in the main space, but in other namespaces too. How one could misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia: categorization to speak about "redundant subset" (of possibly, a hundred of items) of a heavily overpopulated category? Yes, the category is not actually used yet, but why to demolish it? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you propose diffusing Category:Redirects from Unicode characters? If your concern is its overpopulation, I think a better (easier to implement and maintain) solution is to split it into subcategories by e.g. block or row. The concept of compatibility is ill-defined and as such should not be the criterion for a category. Gorobay (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not introduce any proposals about Category:Redirects from Unicode characters, I only demonstrate that initial argument was incorrect. "The concept of compatibility is ill-defined" – I like this talk more. Maybe, Category:Unicode compatibility decomposable characters will satisfy you? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is better-defined, but what is the purpose? Does that purpose apply to canonically decomposable characters? Or characters introduced in version 2.1? There are many ways to divide Unicode; why is compatibility decomposition of more value than they? Gorobay (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is to make a category for compatibility decomposable characters. Sorry this reply is so late. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody knows that. That explanation is useless. Please see my response at the bottom of this section. Gorobay (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
populate If I understand the argument the category should be for characters like U+2126ΩOHM SIGN which is only included in unicode for compatibility reasons (U+03A9ΩGREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMEGA should be used instead). This is a regular category not a hidden admin character like Category:Redirects from Unicode characters.--Salix (talk): 15:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that the aim of the category would be "to divide" the Unicode. I do not propose to eject pages from Category:Redirects from Unicode characters. I do not claim that "compatibility decomposable characters" is the best collection of Unicode characters which one can invent. I repeat what I actually said:
The category is currently unused, but potentially useful;
Gorobay's arguments (except his only valid "ill-defined" argument) was invalid. From the beginning and up to this point.
If one insists, I can start to fill it. Or the name "Unicode compatibility decomposable characters" is actually better than the current one? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is that the category is potentially useful. What is this category potentially useful for? A category populated solely with redirects is not useful to readers. That is my argument.
Why did you link to Divide and rule? It is not what ‘divide’ meant in context. But this is off-topic, so whatever.
A category name should reflect its contents precisely, so the category if it remains should be renamed. Gorobay (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a tracking category. It does not exist to be directly "useful to readers", it exists for internal maintenance purposes. K7L (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced that we need this category. If it is really a tracking category, then why is it in the main name space and not hidden? Given the current content, I see no reason to keep. If someone can establish a real case for this type of category, then recreation can be considered. But at this time, the justification for keeping this is lacking. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly small, one article category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 26 October 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:Kashmiri models and actors
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:split.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Split Quite simply, there's no reason to group these two occupations. Pichpich (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split Although 3/5 members are both, it is not done with any other ethnicity/nationality. Actually, I don't think models are ever split by ethnicity, except Category:Romani models which is empty. --Qetuth (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is Kashmiri models a subject that is more than a trivial intersect of ethnicity and occupation? That is the question we have to answer in regards to keeping it. I am not sure of the answer, but I am begging to think we should require people to create the interesect article, instead of just the ability to create it, before they create the intersect category. It has lead to a proliferation of trivial intersects of ethnicity and occupation categories, especially in various American ethnic (often defined with amorphous descent terms) categories. The fact that lots of Americans are in three American muscians of x descent cats, if not more, should give us pause. With so many models also being actors, and many actors also being singers and thus musicians, we are lucky that these same people have so far avoided being in 9 categpories of American foos of bar descet, with foo being one of their three occupations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 26 October 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:Wikipedia icons
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 the category. - jc37 20:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains three images and the topic is far better covered by the Wikipedia categories over at Commons. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment merge to whatever the category is that is used to hold all images on Wikipedia kept here for project process reasons, which should be all fully protected images similar to these. If we don't keep local files of anything else for these purposes, then we shouldn't have these three images either (they are already on commons), if we do, then they should be categorized together. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are other icons such as those in Category:Wikipedia message box images, but that cat appears to be a useful distinct sub-cat of Category:Wikipedia images. At first I thought the contents should all be transwikied to Commons, but the creator (User:Anomie) of File:Blocked user PD.svg has requested that a local copy be kept, and the edit history of another member, File:User-info.svg, includes: "This is used in the interface, thus high-risk and thus locally uploaded and protected here". – FayenaticLondon 17:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
As a free content encyclopedia, images which pertain to the project itself should all be free content and thus located at Commons. There is no need to collect images here at all, let alone catagorise them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Care what happens to the category, as long as the Commonsistas don't use its deletion as an excuse to delete the images locally. Anomie⚔ 11:39, 30 October 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:Kashmiri
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 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:Touch (TV series)
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.
Response One of them is the footer to the same three articles (nominated at TfD) and one is an image used in one of the articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - contents don't justify a separate category for the series, seems unlikely that the show will generate enough articles to warrant a dedicated category. Buck Winston (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Bushranger, five items are enough, borderline. It is likely that more pages are created, such as season pages, etc., also. TBrandley 21:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD September 22 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: One of the 5 items in the category was Template:Touch (2012 TV series), which was deleted at TfD September 22. The category currently contains 4 items.
Delete. It's now down to 3 pages and an image; too small. – FayenaticLondon 21:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too small to justify having its own cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 18 October 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:Statistics articles with topics template
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 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:Probability articles with topics template
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 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.
Petroleum industry categories
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, with possible split as discussed. -Splash - tk 23:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let's first agree on what should be within the higher level, Category:Petroleum by country. Should Oil fields and Oil reserves be within Petroleum or Petroleum industry? If the former, then the other countries like Russia also each need to have a "Petroleum in Foo" category created to hold "Oil fields in Foo", "Oil reserves in Foo" and "Petroleum industry in Foo". – FayenaticLondon 20:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD 2012 October 1 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Some notifications to the relevant WikiProjects may help to widen participation in this discussion.
Keep and split. Keep the old, set up the proposed categories as well, and add more; Petroleum by country should hold Oil fields, reserves and industry; Petroleum industry by country should hold companies, history, infrastructure and people. – FayenaticLondon 21:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The industry name seems reasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 19 October 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:Software Defined Storage companies
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.
Propose deletingCategory:Software Defined Storage companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:Delete The concept of Software defined storage is not well-defined and it's a bit of a buzzword. I don't think it's a sound basis for a category because the inclusion of an article is subjective. I would also note that of the four articles currently in the category, only one explicitly mentions software defined storage. If kept, the category should be renamed to Category:Software defined storage companies (capitalization). Pichpich (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD 2012 October 1 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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:UPDC participants
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 - No prejudice against re-creation if the project becomes active. - jc37 06:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UPDC participants to Category:Wikipedia User page design center participants
Nominator's rationale:Rename (I prefer the above suggestion but Category:User page design center participants could also work). The current name can easily be confused with a content category and it's also more helpful for users to have categories that avoid Wikipedia shortcuts that they may not be familiar with. Pichpich (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD 2012 October 1 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The category had not been tagged with a CfR notice. I have now tagged it, which will hopefully lead to wider participation in the discussion.
The Category has only two members. Why not just delete it since the project is inactive? Most of the members (who are mostly inactive) don't use this category. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:29, 10 October 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:Androgynous individuals
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can see intersex being a valid category (for instance, someone like athlete Castor Semenya who physiologically is different enough to be notable) but the current listings seem arbitrary. David Bowie is male, Lady Gaga is female, there's nothing biologically unusual about either of them. K7L (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Semanya has never publicly confirmed if she is intersex or not. Asarelah (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the category covers those individuals that were previously contained in the androgyny category. As with other categories inclusion is based on reliable sources describing them as androgynous. eg. Lady Gaga" I portray myself in a very androgynous way, and I love androgyny."[1] " Andrej Pejić "Andrej Pejic... is a Serbian Australianandrogynous model.[2]"MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --John (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; "people who self-identify as androgynous" would overcome BLP issues, but to self-identify that way is not defining in the sense that no one's notability is based solely on that trait. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ambiguous. Pigeon-holes. Even self-description may be ephemeral and does not qualify for permanent life-long classification. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "People that someone or other described as 'androgynous'" isn't a sensible category, and "people that describe themselves as 'androgynous'" tells us next to nothing about them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- we may need Category:Intersex people for those where there is a physical conditon, but in any other case too much POV is needed, and we cannot have POV-based categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, subjective random inclusion of perceived androgynes. CaptainScreeboParley! 14:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that we can readily identify the gender of the two most noted people in the category says that their androgyny is not as powerful as they want us to believe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not adequately distinguish between the medical condition of androgeny and some ill-defined, socially-constructed, fashionista-type surface (mainly facial) appearance of "androgeny" (that seems to be largely the preserve of celebrities and pop-stars). In fact it confuses the whole issue. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 19 October 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:Transgender and transsexual Asian Americans
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. This is a complex set of nominations, dealing as they do with one the one hand inter-related real-world topics and also inter-related Wikipedia matters. I've decided that, despite the split nomination, a single consistent outcome is desirable across all three categories, since there would seem to be no justification in practice nor the content of any of the discussions to produce a split result.
Reading the debates individually and as a whole, it is impossible to find a consensus to delete the categories. Even treating 'delete' as "I'm ok with an upmerge" does not help because it is logically inconsistent to remove any of the three nominated categories but retain the mooted upmerge target of "Category:LGBT Asian Americans", which is just as much a three-way intersect as any of the three under consideration. I would suggest a broader discussion may be needed to settle the matter more generally. -Splash - tk 22:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Transgender and transsexual Asian Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Upmerge to Category:LGBT Asian Americans (and then decide what to do with Category:LGBT Asian Americans, as Category:Asian Americans is a redirect). These need to be upmerges rather than delete. Oculi (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Being more specific in these cases is better than being vague. Insomesia (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. LGB are about whom you are attracted to (sexual orientation). T* is about who you are (gender identity). Not the same beast at all; these are lumped together in names of gay organizations only because these groups often face the same forms of discrimination. One cannot predict sexual orientation knowing only gender identity, so merging these into one random category makes little sense. K7L (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge unjustified 3 way intersect category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more specific category works better .MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can understand the need for Category:Transgender and transsexual Americans and Category:Asian Americans but I don't understand why we need this intersection, I would go further and question why we even have Category:LGBT Asian Americans, why do we need to intersect race, nationality, and gender/sexual orientation. There are no other racial groupings in Category:Transgender and transsexual people, as far as I can work out it seem like there are about 200 articles total for all Transgender and transsexual people, certainly its less than 500. For this small number having many small categories actually make it harder to find articles. --Salix (talk): 20:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these are not race categories, because we do not categorize by race. They are ethnicity categories, since that is how we categorize people. Of course I remain less than convinced that Asian American is functionally an ethnicity. In most cases the relevant ethnicity is Hmong American, Vietnames American, Chinese American, Korean American, Cambodian American, Japanese American etc. Is the intersection of ethnicity and sexual orientation an established enough thing to categorize by? I highly doubt it in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Over categorization. Delete, and make a list instead. Asarelah (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Vote: Delete I have become convinced we have no evidence that we should merge ethnicity and sexuality in one category, at least not in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 30 October 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:Lesbian Asian Americans
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.
Upmerge we highly discorage 3-way intersect categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From WP:OC#EGRS: Dedicated group-subject subcategories ... should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. No case has been made for why this is a unique cultural topic.--Salix (talk): 19:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being Asian American and lesbian is recognized as a distinct cultural topic. You might not be aware of this unless you were both lesbian and Asian American or otherwise seeking out that information. Insomesia (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While that is very true, a list of lesbian Asian-Americans should be more than adequate for that purpose. Asarelah (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories and lists are not synonymous. We serve our readers and a list is simply different than a category. We should not put up roadblocks to learning information. Insomesia (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New vote:delete. I have become convinced that any merger of LGBT and Asian Americaness is merely trivial per Salix reference to WP:OC#EGRS.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 26 October 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:Gay Asian Americans
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.
Upmerge we higly discorage 3-way intersect categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New vote:delete. I have become convinced that any merger of LGBT and Asian Americaness is merely trivial per Salix reference to WP:OC#EGRS.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete and make a list instead. Asarelah (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories and lists are not synonymous. We serve our readers and a list is simply different than a category. We should not put up roadblocks to learning information. Insomesia (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except some things are much better covered by lists than by categories. Lists are better at conveying nuances, some things are not important enough to the subject to categorize by, and some lists distinguish by year in a way that in categories would lead to massive duplication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. Insomesia (talk) 01:43, 5 November 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:Bisexual Asian Americans
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.
Upmerge to Category:LGBT Asian Americans. Oculi (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any automated search-and-replace process to tag LGBT in place of another category. LGBT was a term devised by the organised gay community, after it became the organised gay and lesbian community, after it randomly tacked on other labels like B (bi), T (transgender, transsexual, transvestite, sometimes using T* to indicate these are multiple groups), Q (queer, questioning), I (intersex) and whatever other letters made this look inclusive and politically correct. Whether someone who is bisexual with a preference for the opposite sex (on the Kinsey scale, a 2 or 1) should be tagged with a label associated with gay/lesbian pride organisations if not currently in a same-sex relationship? Hard to say, without looking at each case individually (there's more difference between Kinsey 2 and 6 than between 1 and 0). K7L (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also agree with K7L. Also, why is a category for LGBT Asian Americans acceptable, but gay/lesbian/etc sub-categories are not acceptable? If 'Gay Asian Americans' is non-notable, why would 'LGBT Asian Americans' be notable? I say either keep all these categories or otherwise delete all plus the parent cat. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Being more specific in these cases is better than being vague. Insomesia (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge we higly discorage 3-way intersect categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't use the Kinsey scale to determine bisexuality of an individual, we use public self-identification with the label of bisexual. Period. Please read the rules regarding biographies of living people. As for deceased individuals, we use reliable sources to determine their sxuality. Furthermore, arguing that a bisexual person shouldn't be tagged as LGBT if in an opposite sex relationship frankly smacks of bisexual erasure. Should gay and lesbian people be excluded from the category if they are single? I think not. Asarelah (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources determine the category not the Kinsey scale. And deleting a bisexual category would add to bisexual erasure. Insomesia (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New vote:delete. I have become convinced that any merger of LGBT and Asian Americaness is merely trivial per Salix reference to WP:OC#EGRS. Unless we can create a referenced article on Bisexual Asian Americans we should not have this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly can create a referenced article on Bisexual Asian Americans, I'm not sure if that is the litmus test though. There are articles devoted to the subject so it would be easy enough to do. Insomesia (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its really just plain over-specification. The category contains fewer than a dozen people. The parent categories for bisexual individuals should be adequate, and a list should be fine for the intersection of bisexual and Asian American. Asarelah (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The parent cat is LGBT Asian Americans which has over 60 people in it, most reasonably divided into L, G, B, and T categories. It's a notable intersection covered in reliable sources and it seems the work is already done. This is exactly the kind of information people who ascribe to or are looking for this identity need rather that finding the smaller percentage in a larger more vague grouping. Insomesia (talk) 01:49, 5 November 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:Out-of-print books
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 - jc37 06:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ephemeral category, as once a book is declared out of print by a publisher, it simply means they choosing not to reprint. most publishers dont truly list works as out of print, as they would give up some rights (unless the copyright laws have changed on this). Permanently OP books are very rare, with even Tragedy And Hope now reprinted as a pdf. If populated, this category would include thousands of titles with articles on WP, with each title being constantly placed in and out of the category. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. It's a transient state and likely to be inaccurately reported. Mangoe (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, kindof per Mangoe. Being out-of-print may be a transient state, or may be permanent; it's impossible to predict (see out-of-print). The traditional state of affairs in publishing has changed significantly with the availability of low-volume facsimile reproductions, which have much lower setup costs than traditional reprints, so many titles which might have been expected to be permanently unavailable are now avilable again, though with varying quality. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above. It's not a defining characteristic and it's a maintenance nightmare.
Delete since most books will at some point be out of print. It says little about the book itself. This is especially true because something that was once "out of print" can be published again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 18 October 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:Australia broadcasting stubs
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.
Propose renaming Category:Australia broadcasting stubs to Category:Australia media stubs
Nominator's rationale:Rename and rescope. Quite small and most potential new additions will fit into one of its subcats. On the other hand, expanding the scope to other media will draw more stubs out of the rather broad Category:Australia stubs, as well as provide a better parent category for Category:Australian newspaper stubs and Category:Australian film stubs. --Qetuth (talk) 04:00, 10 October 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:Tripolitania
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Per the introduction, this covers 4 different areas and from the articles it is not clear that they are the same. So maybe this should be split to cover the areas included in the different time periods. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
do not change It is all about same physical area in what is now Libya. Just because an area changed ownership from one empire/county do another over hundreds or thousands of years does not change the fact that is the same land area with a continuing geography (a major city with sometime more/sometimes less surrounding desert) and history. Same with Category:Bavaria and hundreds of other world places. The only difference is that with this Category:Tripolitania an editor added a sentence to show its continuity over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs) 02:08, 10 October 2012
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.
