< March 2 March 4 >

March 3

B-Witched

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 all, i.e. do not rename or delete. Talk:B*Witched#Requested_move was closed as "not moved". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: MOS:TM avoid Macy*s, so this will use standard characters instead of playful typography. This is related to the requested move at Talk:B*Witched -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 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:Children of divorce

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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We generally do not categorize people by either who their parents were or what their parents did. Divorce is so common that this can hardly be called "defining" for the children involved. See also the 2010 deletion discussion for the similar Category:Divorcees. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who wants to be defined by their parentage anyway? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue is that this will be limited to people whose parents were at one point married, but from a sociological perspective those whose parents lived together without marriage and then split up would be in a very similar situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 5 March 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:Districts in Miami, Florida

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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Similar content. Pietro (talk) 22:19, 3 March 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:Roger McGough

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) 10:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:EPONCAT. Contains 3 categories - two of which contain only redirects (one of which is nominated for deletion below)and two articles including one for Roger McGough. Richhoncho (talk) 20:49, 3 March 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:Songs produced by Roger McGough

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) 10:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category contains all the songs from one album, and each member of the category is a redirect. The album is also the single member of Category:Albums produced by Roger McGough which doubly makes this category redundant. There is a further consideration that these are song articles, and McGough may not have produced different versions of each song (if any).. Richhoncho (talk) 20:23, 3 March 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:Berkshire society

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 all. The contents are all in the Berkshire/Hampshire trees.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. The corresponding "London" categories have multiple sub-cats and should be kept, but these three seem unnecessary, as they are not part of a "by county" hierarchy, and the single-subcat contents in each case are also found in other siblings within the county structure. – Fayenatic London 09:30, 3 March 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:Full rigged ships

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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the main article, Full-rigged ship. "Full-rigged" is a compound modifier and, therefore, must be hyphenated; the current title suggests that the category is for rigged ships that are or were full. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:50, 3 March 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:Wikipedians who use Google search

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: stripped. Er, delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This userbox-populated category for editors who use Google Search does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. Not only is the category built around a characteristic that does not correspond to any special ability, skill, or interest, but the threshhold for inclusion is exceedingly low as Google is the most popular web search engine and there are no barriers to using it. The userboxes entirely suffice for identifying a user's preferred search engine, and the category is superfluous. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:17, 3 March 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:AAAA-rated tourist attractions

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems to be more of a travel guide related category. Not sure that something being safe and clean makes it encyclopedic. This is one of several related categories that will be added depending on the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTRAVEL. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read those 3 sentences and am aware of its meaning. The point I want to make is that a government-controlled qualification system which is leading within a country is an important attribute to those articles can be encyclopedic. We have precedents for important systems like Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants, (although I am the first to agree that that system is more notable..) L.tak (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're not adding phone numbers or opening hours, but an official government designation that's hugely influential. Adding a corresponding category to relevant articles does not violate WP:NOTTRAVEL. -Zanhe (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are semi-permanent, like World Heritage Site designations, which can be removed or modified, though not frequently. And we have many categories related to WHS. -Zanhe (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not 100% permanent (few things are), but they are official government designations that rarely change. -Zanhe (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. These are government designations, not awards. -Zanhe (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Li River IS best known as a tourist attraction. -Zanhe (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, that's not how we categorize things - if we did there'd be continuous arguments about whether each river is "best known" for tourism, fishing, transport, irrigation, religion ... DexDor (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that Li River is officially rated by the Chinese government as an AAAAA site, see here. The category only reflects that significant fact, which does not rely on the personal judgment of Wikipedia editors. -Zanhe (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may all be true, but does it have any relevance to categorization ? DexDor (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, because the justification of some "delete" votes is that these ratings are POV of travel guide writers, which they are absolutely not. -Zanhe (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please you must know that is simply not true! Governments do not create or define our category structures. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that not true? Did you read the Peterkingiron comment above? Wikipedia is of course not run by governments, but there's nothing wrong with having categories that are based on existing government categories. -Zanhe (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rule against award cats is often applied, so I do not think it can be reasonable said to go against nothing. Anyway, most cats, like year of birth or death and occupation are clearly not related to awards. Anyway, as I understand this, these categories are related to designations that can change, which is even worse than awards that one gets. It is clearly a mess and will open the door to lots more categories that we do not want.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't criticising the rule, I was criticising the guideline as written, which is meaningless enough to offer no practical guidance. It amounts to "People get awards. We don't categorize by them. Except sometimes we do" and yet gets referred to as a delete reason for categories like this one.
Listed buildings and Michelin stars are also designations which can change, which we categorise by. The fact that they can change might be a disadvantage, but on the other hand the clear definition from an authoritative source is preferable to a subjective category like Category:Visitor attractions in Suzhou or Category:Historic houses. --Qetuth (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those other categories may not strictly meet WP:DEFINING and may occasionally not be permanent, but (1) WP:OTHERSTUFF applies and (2) categories such as those being discussed here are (partly) about characteristics like how clean the toilets were when last inspected, whereas the WHS and NRHP categories are more/only about how important the site is (to history, geology etc); for an encyclopedia (not a travel guide) there's quite a difference. Tourist ratings can be mentioned in articles or lists, but they're not a good way to categorize articles. Category:Visitor attractions is, like many categories, often mis-used; I've removed many articles from it, including some about places that no person has ever visited! DexDor (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are official government designations, not tour guide ratings. -Zanhe (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my above vote per several rebuttals, but in particular this one --Qetuth (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: I'm afraid that your argument is flawed due to your lack of knowledge about China. In China these ratings are authoritative and undoubtedly WP:DEFINING. A designation of a 5A or 4A site is far more influential in China than National Heritage Sites, and only exceeded in prestige by World Heritage Site. Visit the official website of most major Chinese tourist attractions and you'll see the 4A or 5A designation prominently displayed. For example, check out the website of the World Heritage Site Mount Lu, the AAAAA symbol is displayed next to the WHS logo. Here's the "about" page of another World Heritage Site Western Qing Tombs, it's in Chinese but you can see the image of the AAAA certificate displayed above the WHS one. Here are a few more examples: Mount Qionglong, Mount Li -Zanhe (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is flawed (possibly due to your lack of understanding of WP categorization). Those websites may well be aimed at people considering visiting the sites for whom the tourist rating is important. In a global (English language) encyclopedia the top international award (these are awards that humans have given the sites, not intrinsic characteristics of the sites themselves) for a site is the WHS. The exception to the normal rule that "recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category" is generally for the top international award in the field (implied by WP:OC#AWARD) - in this case that would be WHS.
P.S. Michelin stars have been mentioned, but there are important differences. A Michelin star is an indication of how good a restaurant is at being a restaurant; the nearest equivalent for a river would be something like the area drained by the river or the river's flow rate. Also (I think it's fair to say that) Michelin stars are generally agreed to be the top international award in the field which means they may be OK per WP:OC#AWARD. The Michelin stars categories also make clear they're about a permanent characteristic. DexDor (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me your argument sounds incredibly west-centric and smacks of interpreting the rules to rationalize your personal bias. You're basically arguing that a restaurant guide published by a French tire company covering only western countries (plus a handful of non-western cities) has more encyclopedic value than the official Chinese government rating that is authoritative to more than a billion people. Besides, you continue to belittle tourist attractions without questioning the intrinsic encyclopedic value of restaurants. One thing I know for sure: 100 years later, 99% of these A-rated tourist sites will still be with us, whereas a majority of the Michelin-starred restaurants will be long gone. -Zanhe (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would go one further. I would argue we should also delete the whole Michelin star tree. However I think you are ignoring the fact that things can move up and down in ratings, getting the highest rating is not permanent, and categories are supposed to be permanent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're taking the word permanent too literally. Few things are permanent in the absolute sense. World Heritage Sites can get delisted (Dresden), cities and provinces are created (Tiemenguan City) or merged (Jiangdu) on a not infrequent basis. Even entire countries come (South Sudan) and go (South Yemen). I believe the general practice is to treat semi-permanent things that do not change frequently or regularly as permanent. -Zanhe (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed building status is awarded based on a building's importance to architecture etc; an argument could be made that it fails WP:OC#AWARD. Tourist ratings (Chinese or otherwise) are partly/mainly about things like how clean the toilets are in the visitor centre and whether there's access for disabled tourists and so are an even worse characteristic to categorize by. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but your comment is a blatant mischaracterization of the ratings. It's true that all A-rated sites have to meet minimum hygiene standards such as providing clean toilets, but the ratings are mainly based on criteria such as the site's fame, cultural/environmental significance, protection of the environment around the site, and number of visitors. -Zanhe (talk) 14:25, 4 April 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:Former Yahoo! employees

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 to Category:Yahoo! employees. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: this is not like a renounced religion. we dont categorize people as "formerly" something, or as retired. these people were at one time employees, and the curious will simply read the article to determine if they are current employees. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:59, 3 March 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:Mayors of San Bruno, California

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: upmerge to Category:Mayors of places in California (the other merge already manually performed). The Bushranger One ping only 06:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only 1 article, research shows its highly unlikely any other mayors will have articles any time soon. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:47, 3 March 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:Italian Jews

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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nominated out of process with a merge template. I will contact the person who placed the template and ask them to comment at the discussion Ego White Tray (talk) 04:32, 3 March 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:Free online games

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 needs a cleanup, because no one outside the video game cognoscenti could know what to put where. But the discussion suggests this is not as simple as just merging.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nominated by another user to merge as noted using a merge tag. Moving the discussion here where it belongs. I will try to contact the editor who placed the tag. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:53, 3 March 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