< June 9 June 11 >

June 10

Category:Calvinists

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Calvinists by occupation to Category:Calvinist and Reformed Christians by occupation
  • Rename Category:Calvinist artists and writers to Category:Calvinist and Reformed artists and writers
Nominator's rationale: Per this CfD, we should use "Calvinist and Reformed" to avoid confusion rather than either term to avoid confusion. JFH (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Rename as proposed: As one of the contributors to this hierarchy, I approve this as an appropriate rename. (But note that Dutch is matched to French above -- should be two separate lines.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed --JFH (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "denominational," do you mean the Continental Reformed churches, which often have "Reformed" in the name? I agree these should be a subcat here, but I don't think that's how Category:Reformed Christians is being used. And surely the Reformed tradition is more than a theological position. --JFH (talk) 15:00, 18 June 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:Straight edge 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell, straight edge is similar to teetotaler; eg someone who doesn't drink, smoke, or do drugs. Dennis_Lyxzén is a classic example here - in this interview (replace x with y - this url is banned for some reason he talks about how from time to time he will drink a glass of champagne. I think a list, which already exists at List of people that follow a straight edge lifestyle is a better way of capturing the nuance here, a category is not, especially since you're talking about mostly musicians who might float in and out of adherence to a straight-edge regime - thus a list where such behaviors can be sourced and the nuance captured is better than a category Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:52, 10 June 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:Vegans

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per recent CFDs, consensus seems to be that diet-based categories for individuals are not considered as WP:DEFINING:

While being a vegan is obviously an important personal choice for certain of the people in these categories, I don't think ultimately these are workable as categories, as some people become vegetarian, then vegan, then go back to being vegetarian, or pescatarian, or back to omnivore. Diet choices change during one's lifetime, and are rarely static.

In addition, there are different definitions of what it means to be vegan, and whether you only do so in diet or for products you use/wear/etc, and for how long one has to be a vegan before they could be placed into this category.

Finally, when I read media profiles of many of the people in these categories, their diet is not mentioned. Thus, I think these categories generally fail WP:DEFINING.

I think this information is best kept at List of vegans, where diet choice at a given time in life can be sourced and contextualized appropriately, as opposed to as a category, which is binary membership (in or out).

We could create a category called Category:Vegan and vegetarian activists or similar for those who have actively campaigned for and promoted a vegan or vegetarian diet and have been called as such by media reports; but simply following a vegan diet should not lead to categorization as same.

You also have cases where people are categorized as vegans even though the word didn't exist at the time (word invented c.1944) - see Lewis Gompertz for example - who espoused some of what are today known as vegan principles, but also accepted eating of meat if the animal died naturally. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have thoughts on the others? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Vegan athletes is a redirect to List of vegans. That being the case, I'm not sure that we have an objective basis for saying that this category really deals with a set of persons notable for being vegans. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other categories Not sure: When a category becomes big enough, it needs to be diffused and the most common methods (for biographies) are by nationality and by century. There's not claim that (e.g.) Chinese vegans are somehow different at being vegans than Canadian ones, but there simply has to be some method to break up larger categories into navigable ones. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - perhaps you misunderstood the nomination - I've proposed to delete the Vegans tree entirely. If it's kept, I agree on dividing by country, that's reasonable - but the proposal is that being "Vegan" is not WP:DEFINING, so we should not have such categories at all.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree in part with your last sentence, there comes a point of diminishing returns. (For example: would we really want Category:Slovenians who had acne as teenagers?) I worry that categories like this end up being a subtle form of POV-pushing, by telling our readers "oh, look, this person whose biography you looked up for reasons other than being vegan is a vegan, along with so many other people!" I would not object to a category for people who are not only vegan, but who have made "let[ting] it be known" a major part of their life's work. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guidance is WP:DEFINING - that's how we know that Slovenians with acne is not a valid category. In most articles about the people covered here, unless the source is a pro-vegan magazine, they do not cover their dietary choices. We have a list of vegans where such statements (and adherence/non-adherence) can be covered, but since none of this can be verified it's essentially a self-declared affiliation and as such not really worthy of categorization. As it says at WP:DEFINING, "In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right. I agree, and that really validates the point I was trying to make. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 12 June 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:Conwy United F.C. 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Club name changed from 'Conwy United F.C.' to 'Conwy Borough F.C.' Mattythewhite (talk) 14:17, 10 June 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:Fitness 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.
The result of the discussion was: delete (merged to Category:Health stubs). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Considering the current content, I don't see a reason to build this category when we already have Category:Health stubs. Dawynn (talk) 11:46, 10 June 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:Chinese city 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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. I'm also closing this related discussion as "delete". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary. We already have geography stub categories for each of the major divisions of China (PRC, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet). This category and template will only cause dissention about what constitutes a "city". Dawynn (talk) 11:40, 10 June 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:User miq

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. I note that Template:User miq-1 was changed on 11 June so that its members no longer also populate this top category. That follows e.g. Template:User fr-1 but not some others e.g. Template:User ga-1 which currently also populates its top category. – Fayenatic London 13:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All users in the category (only two) are all miq-1, and no one uses the alternate template Template:User miq. Somehow, the miq-1 guys are also thrown into this category, an act which has no precedents. This should be deleted. I've nominated Template:User miq for deletion too. Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Tell me your requests) 06:40, 10 June 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.

Drugs

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: cleanup, no consensus for changes, except that I will take this as authority to replace Category:Video games about drugs with Category:Video games about illegal drug trade and purge it of works that casually reference drug use. – Fayenatic London 13:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The publishing of a book does not make the subject of the book notable, although the book itself might be notable. For instance, say, a book called "Famous cats through history" would not transpire that there should be a category called famous cats through history, nor does it signify that every cat in the book should have an article. Similarly, if I wrote a book about "Films about Twins" I'd want to include anything and everything that would make this book a commercial success - which is the antithesis of what Wikipedia is trying to do. So any category can only be judged by Wikipedia guidelines, in this case do the categories contain original research? and Are the categories defining? I have no objection to an well-written article about, for instance, "Drugs in film" but a category that could include any film where a character has taken an aspirin is not encyclopedic, useful, or benefit to the greater world, which is in line with Carlossuarez46's succinct comment above --Richhoncho (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re I agree with you, but this is a problem of cleanup, not a problem which require deletion. Obviously a character who takes an aspirin should not to be included in a category named "Films about drugs" (it's common sense!), but The Basketball Diaries, Christiane F. – We Children from Bahnhof Zoo, The Boost and dozens of other films surely do, and their inclusion is not ambiguous nor debatable. There are category-topics that are too loose or vague, and that could generate confusion, and should be deleted. There are others which are quite definite to be reasonably maintained. Following your arguments we should delete Category:Books about spirituality as some fool could include in it a novel in which a charachter at one point began to pray, or Category:World War I films as someone other could add a film set in 2520 in which a character refers of one ancestor who fought in World War I... these things happen, but they are surmuntable problems, and are very common for every single category. Cavarrone 12:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, it's a problem of definition, then it's a problem of clean up. My "aspirin taker character" is justified to be included because it is a pivotal moment in the film (according to me!) Most of the "about" categories in popular culture should be deleted. "About" ignores every literary device and for that reason "about" is a load of old tosh. That is not to say well written and referenced articles cannot be created - as opposed to laundry lists, which is all a category is! Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "about" means "concerning/ on the subject of" and plain and simple the said topic requires to be the primary subject of the book/film/work, and the relevant article should provide evidence of that... if the inclusion of an article is minimally debeatable this is a good sign that probably the article should not be included in the category. The question is "Do we have books that unambiguously have drug addiction or drug dealing as the primary topic?", "Do we have films that unambiguously have drug addiction or drug dealing as the primary topic?" etc., if your answer is yes, so we have a real topic. Specifically, moving from theory to practice, looking at all the memoirs listed in Category:Memoirs about drugs they all appear to unambiguously have drugs as their primary subject, all the non-fiction books listed in Category:Non-fiction books appear to unambiguously have drugs as their primary subject, all the TV programs listed in Category:Television programs about drugs appear to unambiguously have drugs as their primary subject, all the documentaries listed in Category:Documentary films about drugs appear to unambiguously have drugs as their primary subject, all the short stories listed in Category:Short stories about drugs appear to unambiguously have drugs as their primary subject. Zero problems and no ambiguity also in Category:Poems about drugs or Category:Novels about drugs. Films and songs require a full inspection and surely could require some purging, but not so much at first sight. If we move from theory to practice, these apparent major issues reveal to be not so much big. Cavarrone 16:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In respect of non-factual, my answer to your question, Do we have films that unambiguously have drug addiction or drug dealing as the primary topic? then my answer is a resounding "NO" which is as OR as if I had said "Yes". This is quite simply because we are taking at face-value what was intended by the film director, songwriter, poet etc Are you denying that these people do use allegory, metaphor and every other literary device available? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, moving from theory to practice I have showed above how these categories are actually working well, and how the large majority of articles listed in the works about drugs categories do not require any OR nor any "interpretation effort" to be included in their categories. Les Paradis artificiels is a poem about drugs, Cocaine Cowboys is a documentary about drugs, Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue is a TV program about drugs, Opium Nation is a memoir about drugs, Trainspotting is a novel about drugs, The Panic in Needle Park is a film about drugs, The Rhetoric of Drugs is a non-fiction book about drugs, King Heroin is a song about drugs and so on, I don't think we can disagree on this. What you say is "Hey, this book could be interpreted as an allegory of drug addiction", yes, THIS is OR and the book should be purged by the category, as the categories should include only the works that explicitly have drugs as main subject. When there is a matter of opinion about the inclusion of an article, it's safer to exclude it from the category, if not (as it happens for the majority of the articles) "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies. Cavarrone 14:29, 8 July 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:1826 establishments in Turkey

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/merge. If we need to categorize as both, the years in categories can contain both Turkey and Ottoman Empire. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal to the years in Germany tree ignores the fact that Category:1910 in Germany is clearly using the 1910 boundaries of Germany, not the present ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's likely referring to your proposal for the Germany categories and/or to the pre-1871 subcategories of Category:Years in Germany. This has little to do with "1910 in Germany" because AFAIK everyone agrees that there was a state called "Germany" in 1910, which is not necessarily the case with "Turkey" and the years covered by these categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However I have a 1911 atlas that show a country called Turkey, but it is using it for the Ottoman Empire. Turkey was a common name for a place but it was used to refer to ALL the Ottoman Empire. The attempt to use it only within its modern boundaries at times where the name Turkey was widely used creates a total mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the OE was/is often referred to as "Turkey", and Turkey became the successor state at international law; however, the vast majority of the Turkey categories were created first in time. So it's worth considering if maybe the Ottoman Empire categories never should have been created without this discussion taking place first. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turkey was not a subdivision of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey was a synonym of the Ottoman Empire. It had subdivisions like Adrianople, Saloniki, Janina, Selfidze, Monastir, Kossovo, and Skutari. Turkey is not a division of the Ottoman Empire, at the time it was a synonym of the Ottoman Empire.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wonder if it is worth having the establishments by year by country tree in existence before 1800. On the other hand, for almost no year are we anywhere close to filling out these categories, and that is even just with the articles we have that identify when they were established.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not anywhere close to filling out categories before 1800, indeed. However, we do have Category:11th-century_BC_years_by_country, with e.g. Category:1040 BC disestablishments in China. Note that the area that is now Turkey was (likely) already significantly inhabited in that same time, with Byzantium being a great example of a Category:657 BC establishment in Turkey a mere 500 years later (I know that Byzantium has not been categorised there .. yet, but since Guan (state) follows the scheme, I see no reason why Byzantium should not follow the same scheme). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The India one would be I think be findable with a link through Category:1865 establishments in Pakistan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any discussion that exists will be findable, I just don't think I should be the one to do the finding when they are cited to support your arguments. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 19 June 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:Waxwings

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 and redirect. – Fayenatic London 18:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both names refer to the same family. Not sure what direction the merge should go. Ucucha (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment someone searching is more likely to use the English name. I suspect a reader who knows the scientific name wouldn't need to search, since there are only a handful of members anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody searching is going to use the search box which will direct them to Waxwing. I don't mind the common name tree, Category:Birds by common name. But the category will only come up if someone uses the advanced search box ... --Lquilter (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is unfortunate that Bombycillidae redirects to 'waxwings' which ignores Phainoptila melanoxantha. If that species is the only non-Bombycillid in the family, then I suggest tidy and merge. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 June 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:User information templates

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one template, and its scope is very vague. It's no longer needed. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:33, 10 June 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.
More