< December 23 December 25 >

December 24

Category:Lists of tallest buildings in Massachusetts by city

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: This 2-layer structure is un-needed, because there are only 10 relevant articles for California and 3 for Massachusetts. It is quite sufficient to have one category to group this et of articles for the respective states. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 25 December 2013 (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:Sterilization in fiction

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. Normally, this weight of deletion preferences would be sufficient to remove the category. However, following Bensin's work, I gather (though the passage of time makes this hard) that the category's purpose has shifted away from that which was nominated. Considering that the nomination rationale itself is therefore mooted, we are left with a debate which is closer to a natural no consensus decision anyway, and this taken together with the altered/expanded purpose is enough to persuade me that we do not have a consensus to delete the category that was nominated — but, without prejudice to a new CfD considering the current version of the category. -Splash - tk 22:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overspecific category, no other possible entries. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 17:44, 24 December 2013 (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:Omak, Washington-related lists

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 as nomination (and then DELETE). -Splash - tk 22:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT, with only 1 article. Omak, Washington is a small town, so this category is unlikely to expand. Best to merge to both parents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 24 December 2013 (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:Grote Prijs van Zolder

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy deletion. C1 — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is empty. The only entries it had were both AFD. ...William 13:08, 24 December 2013 (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:United States transport-related lists

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, along with category tree. Note that this is an ENGVAR issue, and shouldn't be taken as a precedent for other countries. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All subcategories should also be renamed down the tree so that this and all of them use the American English "transportation" instead of "transport" as is customary for US-related categories in this topic area. Imzadi 1979  10:19, 24 December 2013 (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:Sportsperson-criminals

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 both. The Bushranger One ping only 01:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category's nexus doesn't seem to have a point and would be absurdly overbroad if carried out to its titular extreme - there are literally thousands of athletes who have committed "crimes" ranging from murder to speeding. Labeling them all "sportsperson-criminals" is ridiculous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speeding is, in fact, a crime. It is not a very serious crime, but it is a crime. Hence it being punishable by fines or jail time. See the problem here? You have created a category that is wildly overbroad and identifies people as "criminals" without due consideration. The rule of thumb is that we only define people as "criminals" if they are primarily noteworthy for their crimes and not some other part of their life. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that we should only include people in it who committed crimes we have categories for, but then you immediately argue to include Michael Vick, a person whose crime we do not have a category for? In what universe is this a consistent or verifiable policy? Why couldn't someone create a category for people convicted of speeding, marijuana possession, vandalism or every other crime under the sun? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, it turns out that this is a universe where Michael Vick is already in Category:American people convicted of cruelty to animals. Look at Category:Criminals by crime, see what crimes are listed and imagine how long a category for people convicted of jaywalking, speeding, littering, furniture tag removal or every other crime under the sun would last in a universe where even the most logic-challenged editor can delete any nascent category with the artfully crafted argument "not defining". Alansohn (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that Vick is so categorized because you created the category and put him in it just before commenting that it "turns out" that he is so categorized. Intellectual honesty and transparency are always appreciated. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Jerry Pepsi Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and I'm not sure why transparency demands that I disclose any of my edits here or anywhere. After I had stated earlier that Vick was not in a criminal category, the intentionally ironic statement that it "turns out" that he was in the category was offered in rather clear recognition of the fact that the encyclopedia that anyone can edit maintains a full audit trail, which can be readily searched by any editor, just as you did. The pedantic argument raised that Vick was not in a crime-related category was not relevant, and I had stated that it should include those individuals "with the potential [emphasis added] for a pair of categories grouping the person as both an athlete and as a criminal", but it was addressed to close out that line of argument. Vick is a convicted felon who served time in jail, and I think that few could honestly challenge the claim that he is an athlete-criminal. If you have an issue with the categorization for Vick, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is also the encyclopedia that allows anyone to delete anything, so I must acknowledge in the holiday spirit of complete transparency that the option is available to you. Alansohn (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. It's irony. Well, you keep telling yourself that, Alanis. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have people listed in this category whose major, important and defining crime is a pizza store robbery or minor drug deal 25 years ago. Why Wikipedia should thus define that person as a "criminal" for the rest of their lives is not clear. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! If it was up to me, possession of heroin would be decriminalized, certainly for amounts less than a few kilos. I have no idea why pizza store robberies are illegal; They're just asking for it, and at worst the penalty for a pizza store stickup should be a small fine, not unlike a parking ticket, but only after your first three robberies. As long as no one in the store dies during the holdup, I fail to see why any person should be saddled with the label of "criminal" on Wikipedia simply because they shot up and robbed a Papa John's. Alansohn (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that someone has been convicted of a crime is different than labeling and defining their life as a "criminal." Wikipedia does not label people "criminals" unless their primary notability is for criminal acts. When a biographical article about a professional basketball player has more discussion of a one-sourced 25-year-old pizza store robbery than of their basketball career, something is horribly wrong with the encyclopedia. Our biographies too often place their focus on the titillating and the negative to an undue extent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robbing a pizza store is not, in and of itself, notable. We do not write biographies of every person ever convicted of a crime. So yes, it is our place - editorial judgment matters. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What if the category title were to be changed to "Sportspeople convicted of crimes"?Hoops gza (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American women textile artists

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 Category:American women textile artists to Category:American textile artists and DELETE Category:Women textile artists and Category:Women textile artists by nationality, i.e. as per nomination. There is little support for outright retention here; and there is the matter of irrationality of having women but not men categories. It seems like this family of categories has other problems besides, and may benefit from a reboot editorially. -Splash - tk 21:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: From what I can see, the vast majority of textile artists are women. It would make more sense, if at all, to have a category for male artists instead. It makes no sense to have a category for women textile artists because this category could easily contain most American textile artists and duplicate the parent category! Sionk (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note to nom: could you nominate the parent container cats as well? -Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, just did so and added to the nomination.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, an artist is different from a designer. Artists aren't sub-sets of designers. Sionk (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on your definition, and there is a considerable overlap whichever way, as the moment an "artist" is commissioned to do a large work that will be woven by a team, they become a "designer". Many "artists", especially in older periods, had no weaving experience at all. The distinctions the current set of categories attempt to maintain are probably not tenable, and do not appear to be reflected in the category contents anyway. They concentrate on the way and number of times the design is made rather than the actual role of the artist/designer. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is contained in the parent category. Maybe the inclusion criteria simply needs tranferring to the sub-categories? Either way, if someone is designing for mass production they're a designer. Artists create one-offs. At this npoint we should probably continue this conversation elsewhere, because its not addressing the subject of the discussion. Sionk (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - "Artists create one-offs" - what rubbish! Try to take a wider view than your own experience. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2013 (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.