< November 25 November 27 >

November 26

Category:Women by organization

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 now that all of the subcategories have been processed by individual CfDs. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This cat was recently created to house Category:Columbia University women, which is also up for deletion. I don't think we should start a scheme of genderizing employees-of-companies; it is sufficient, when warranted, to have genderized job descriptions (like Category:Women physicians vs Category:Women surgeons working at SFO General Hospital. Splitting the various subcats of Category:People by organization would cause a ghettoization/last-rung mess in almost all cases (because most employer categories aren't otherwise diffusable), and for now there is only one subcategory of this one. As such, it should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only contents are up for deletion, so if the other cats are deleted this will be empty. The Christian women is a different issue - those are specific roles for women, and "Christian" is not really an organization.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said the subcats, which include organization-related things such as the abbesses. "Christian" isn't an organization, but Christianity is. Your comments seem quite irrelevant, so I'm guessing that you're making relevant comments that I've misinterpreted. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point of the category? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the nomination? Please help me understand your meaning better. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Christianity isn't an organization. It is a religion (actually, it describes a number of different dogmas). There's a huge difference. I think you were suggesting that Category:Ordained Christian women may be relevant to this category, but I disagree - that category doesn't need a different parent, and in any case for religious orders there are specific roles laid out for women, which is much less the case with other types of organizations. In any case, I agree with BHG, once it's empty we should delete it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:16, 11 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:Navy of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename or upmerge. I figured that like most topic categories, this one should be renamed to match its corresponding main article: Real Marina (Kingdom of the Two Sicilies). This was opposed in the speedy section (see below) based on the argument that categories for navies use purely English names. But I noted that with the exception of this one, all of the categories are named after the corresponding main article—it just so happens that usually the corresponding main article is in English! Anyway, perhaps with only a main article and a subcategory, we don't even need the category at all, in which case it could be upmerged? Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
copy of discussion at WP:CFDS
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:Urban legends in video 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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: urban legends are many; they are tropes, by definition almost, so much fiction would be amiss if it didn't include an urban legend here or there. I don't think this is defining. I looked at the articles for these games, and didn't find many that even mentioned "urban legend" Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:01, 26 November 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:Video games featuring protagonists of selectable gender

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, defaulted to keep. Good arguments from both sides, none of them being obviously stronger than the opponents.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Video games featuring protagonists of selectable gender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: According to the study by EEDAR (referenced here: http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/games-with-female-heroes-dont-sell-because-publishers-dont-support-them), 45% of games in their sample included the ability to select a female protagonist, or select the gender of the protagonist.As such, I don't think this is defining. They only found a few percent with exclusively female protagonists, which is I think the figure that is more of interest. I think this category doesn't help, since it could group any game where you can choose the name of your character and pick an icon - boy or girl - to represent yourself - that to me is not what people are discussing when considering female leads. You can't choose to be someone other than Ms PacMan or Lara Croft (I don't think) - if the choice of a female lead is forced, that is a decision that has marketing implications, and the lack of such games is what causes the debate. This particular category should be deleted as not defining. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's about user-created protag in single player only option, as explained in the (defining) description. There are only few such games. Also it was split from the main cat because people requested it to be subcatted. And yes, FemShep is exactly what people actually discuss, and not MS Pacman (a forgotten charakter from 3 decades ago). --Niemti (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the study linked above found 45% of games allowed selection of the character's gender. The discussion about femshep may be it interesting in an article but is not enough to form the basis of categorization. Also I don't think femshep is user-created really, but that's besides the point. The point is, many many games allow you to play as a character of either gender. What is interesting is that there are many more games that only can be played as male, and very few games that can only be played as female. I don't know why you dismiss ms pacman, it's sort of a classic example and I havent forgotten it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lear2read: "Video games with the player-customized gender of the lead characters during the character creation process (only for the single-player oriented games featuring starting main characters)." There's no "many". Also, there's no "45" anywhere in your false source link. Learn2read2: "In all three genres, a little under 300 games gave the option of a female lead. That includes games where you can choose your gender or create your own character" and opnly the last part is any relevant (but most of it is MMOs anyway). As I said, stuff like Femshep (1,250,000 Google results for Femshep, only 228,000 for Ms Pacman despite or because being more than 2 decades older). --Niemti (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
please be careful with your arrogant 'learn2read' exhortations, if you read the source it is indeed 45% of sample. I'd much rather trust a source that took a random sample of games and analyzed them that take into account your own personal guesstimates of the frequency of such games.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you still can't understand what people write (they and me). --Niemti (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no, my rationale is that anything which, when sampled, applies to 45% of games is not defining. It's also not defining because if I look at the lede for most of these games it doesn't say 'you can choose a boy or girl character'. Finally it's not defining because the literature in this space has focused on the number of games which are only male, vs the small number of games which are only female. The middle ground, where you can choose to be pacman or ms pacman, is not worth categorizing on.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about choosing between characters, but CREATING the central protagonist. Did you even read the description? --Niemti (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not categorize on games where you can customize the protagonist? There are many games where you can choose the protagonist's name, or the color of the car they drive, or their clothes, or their hairstyle, etc. Also, if this is only about designing new characters from a template, why do you mention femshep above? Again, per the research above, 45% of games in their sample allowed you to select the gender. This is not defining of the game.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep deleting every attempt made to address the description of the topic made by sources, the only thing we achieve is forcing the next editor to start from scratch and build a new imperfect categorization of the topic, with all the previous accumulated knowledge lost. If we instead recognize that there is no deadline, we can use these categories as the starting point of a more refined, better classification and categorization; we will be able to build the one step at a time, instead of requiring that it appears perfectly formed from scratch. Diego (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
these are not imperfect cats, they are not defining cats. You can apply perfection and preserve to any arbitrary category, so that argument carries no special currency here. You can find literature that talks about and lists games with male leads, but I also don't think we should categorize based on that. It is not the case that we should categorize on every characteristic that some literature covers somewhere, we have to appy editorial judgement. In this case, with 45% if games qualifying here as allowing gender selection, that's far too common to merit categorization accordingly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right when you say that PRESERVE is a policy that applies always (and therefore we have to follow it unless you explicitly provide a reason why not following it would improve Wikipedia - which you didn't). Also in case of disagreement, editorial judgement is best informed by what external sources say - so, the fact that they cover the topic as a defining characteristic (namely, that these games sell less copies) is a huge reason to keep the classification. Diego (talk) 19:03, 5 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:Terms of French origin

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:Lists of English words of French origin, but actually this appears to have been done since the nomination. It only contains List of Spanish words of French origin, so I will in fact DELETE the nominated category. -Splash - tk 20:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Terms of French origin to Category:Lists of terms of French origin
Nominator's rationale: The current contents are all lists and the category is under a lists category. Alternatively this category could be deleted and the current content (one category) could be upmerged. DexDor (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If it's downmerged into the English-specific category then List of Spanish words of French origin (which was added to the category after the above comments) would need to be removed from the category. DexDor (talk) 19:55, 15 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:Video games featuring non-playable female protagonists

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 passage of time here makes closure difficult. I understand from the final comment that an editorial move has apparently already taken place (User:Niemti's contribs list does not indicate in edit summary whether this is true or not, though), which seems reinforced by the fact this cat as of this moment contains only one article. So I think I will delete this category, but allow that if I misunderstood an old situation that we can recreate the cat. -Splash - tk 21:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Video games featuring non-playable female protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: While I can understand the need for a category of games where a gamer can play a female character, I don't see the need for a category of games where the antagonist (e.g the evil queen, the princess-in-need-of-help) is female, and I don't think this is defining. When people talk about gender in games, and the need to balance, I don't think they're talking about games where an army of dudes teams up to defeat an evil supercomputer with a female voice.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that people discuss female villains; the point is, it is not the lack of female villains that is decried - it is the lack of playable female characters that women gamers (and others) can identify with that is really defining for the games in question. For example, several books and critics and articles discuss games with female sidekicks, or games with female secondary characters, or games with damsels in distress, but we aren't going to categorize on that either. I think overall we have overcategorization in these video games, and several of these categories need pruning, but starting to categorize games by the gender of non-playable characters just goes too far.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, FWIW, this is not a "non-diffusing sub-category of Category:Portrayals of women and Category:Video games by theme"; it is a non-diffusing subcategory of Category:Video_games_featuring_female_protagonists. I'm proposing deletion, not merging, because any games in this category by definition don't belong in the parent, which should be only for female protagonists which are playable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that Category:Video games featuring female protagonists should be only for playable characters? The inclusion criterion and the deletion discussion certainly don't assume that, so why would you? (and why base the deletion of another category on that assumption of yours)? Diego (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is that several people in their comments, in that discussion and in the previous one, mentioned the criteria of playability. I think if you were to ask them, most would assume that protagonist *meant* "main character that you can play" - for example, see the following links:
(list of female protagonists which is equated with "playable")
(protagonists equated with playable)
(representation issue linked to "playability" of characters)
Most of the articles I have read on this subject focus on this issue of protagonist as playable character. For another example, Sarkeesian's video on "Damsel in distress" discusses how a would-be protagonist was turned into a damsel-in-distress instead.[11]
One of the most famous recent non-playable female lead characters, Yorda, is feted as a great female character, but importantly, she is NOT described as a protagonist.
Here, we have a definition of protagonist: "The character that the player controls".
Lists, such as this one, include only playable characters: [12]
net net, I think the idea that protagonist can include non-playable characters is really an edge case, and in any case, I think the utility of categorizing games where a non-playable main character is a woman is pretty weak, as this just brings us back to the damsel-in-distress tropes. If the point of this category is to mirror the discussions happening about female protagonists, we should follow the common-sense definitions and keep it to only playable ones.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sarkeesian knows nothing about video games. Now, some clear examples: Ghost in the Shell (video game) follows Motoko Kusanagi in the story cutscenes, the male player character is just some random nameless dude shooting stuff in the gameplay sections. In Lifeline (video game) and The Daedalus Encounter the male player character is only helping the protagonist(s) through a live feed sort connection. In Silent Hill: Shattered Memories the male player character from the "actual" gameplay sections was imaginary and didn't exist. --Niemti (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Obiwankenobi. If you think that the only non-playable main characters are the damsels in distress, you haven't looked at the contents of the category with much care. Most of those characters are not damsels in distress, and several (Galatea, Grace from Façade) are much more important to the story than the player character. Your main argument (that a different criterion exists for other category should prevent this category from existing) doesn't make any sense. Diego (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Diego has just changed the inclusion criteria back to include antagonists and secondary characters who are female. This only strengthens the reasoning to delete - just because one villain or one secondary character in a game is a female, how is that defining of the game? For example, in Halo, the computer who helps you has a female persona - but the whole game you're playing the master chief, who seems rather male. I don't think those decrying the lack of female protagonists had Halo in mind as a model of how to incorporate women into games. The key point made in the literature is identification of the player with the character they are playing, and the financial costs and poor market for games where there is only a female lead to play, since (presumably) the majority of male gamers don't want to play such games. But those same gamers have no problems buying Halo by the millions in spite of a female computer AI.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, I think it would be best to have a consensus as to what counts (in a nutshell) as a female non playable protagonist. Only then we should keep this article. BallroomBlitzkriegBebop (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I already did it. Also an antihero has nothing to do with a protagonist status, a protagonist can even be an outright villain ('bad guy'). --Niemti (talk) 01:25, 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.

Category:American models 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 and DELETE to the second indicated category. This appears to have happened with the passage of time since the nomination. Also, most of the original categories appear to have been deleted as creations of a banned user. The de facto outcome has been that the second of the two merge targets has been created, and all but a few originals then deleted. I will follow that pattern for the few that remain. I note that there are requests for a two-way merge, but that can always be accomplished just editorially, there is no need for a CfD to approve it at this stage. -Splash - tk 21:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete with all subcategories, as overcategorization. Merge up to state-level categories, as overcategorization. This is enough of a non-defining characteristic that WP:OC#LOCATION uses "models by city" as an example of categorization to avoid.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We classify by states and cities typically, don't think it's overcategorization.--Oriole85 (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no real "typically" here. We categorize by states and cities when necessary, based on relevance and the need to manage larger categories. City-based categorization fails both points. Not to mention, I'm not sure how you can make your argument when, judging from your edit history, you're having to make significant changes to numerous category trees in order fit this "typical" method of categorization in, for modeling occupation cats and beyond.  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's way too many American models, it only makes sense to break it down further IMO. I'm only trying to populate cities where there's a significant number.--Oriole85 (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Oriole85. Dwscomet (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The parent cat is more than enough. Subcat down to municipality is drilling way too deep down into the weeds to be of use for anything but making busywork for avid categorizers. Eric talk 19:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right: I should have nominated for upmerging in the first place. Good call.  Mbinebri  talk ← 20:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably tag all of the subcategories, and mark them as merge up above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I think the intent was to delete all subcategories; however, the nom didn't tag or bring them here, but I !voted on that basis.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Obi, and you were not alone. However, subcategories which are neither tagged nor nominated cannot be merged by this discussion, so I wanted to draw the attention of the closing admin to the fact that the discussion here has been about a proposal which is not actually on the table. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, rather than closing this discussion, could the nom @Mbinebri: tag all associated subcategories and extend this discussion another week? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really done. Most of the categories have not been tagged, and those which have been tagged do not link properly to this section, because the anchor is missing the prefix "Category:".
Also, any merges should be to both parents. For example, Category:Models from Foo City, Bar State should be merged to Category:Models from Bar State and Category:People from Foo City, Bar State. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 30 November 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:Project Catwalk (Netherlands)

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 (per accidental creation; see discussion below). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL. There is only one article in the category, and there it's unlikely that enough articles will be created to warrant a category as this reality show was only held once. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently, I created this category but I don't create categories for just one article. Was this category emptied? Were there more articles that were tagged with this category like show contestants or seasons? I can't figure out what happened here. Liz Read! Talk! 12:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know. I didn't remove any pages from the category, and it had only page in it, when this nomination was made. There are the edits you near the creation of this category. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When I nominated it for speedy renaming approx. 24 hrs ago, I believe it only had one article in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I blew it here. I usually don't create a category unless there are at least 5 or 6 child categories/articles (and hopefully many more than that). I'm glad you caught this, this should be a speedy delete.
This was a bad call on my part and all I can think of is when I'm working categorizing a field like TV series or descent or actors or anything that looks like it needs tending, I look at the whole, largest category and work very systematically...I must have mistakenly believed there were more related articles that would go in that category when the fact is that the one article that does exist is terrible, barely a stub. I'll slow down and be more careful. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and delete the category as it appears to have been created not on purpose, or at least with extreme buyer's remorse! Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 27 November 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:Bicontinental countries

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Articles about countries that span more than one continent (e.g. Russia) are generally categorized for each of those continents so there is no need for this category. This category also contains articles such as Netherlands and Spain. For info: There is a list at List of transcontinental countries. DexDor (talk) 06:42, 26 November 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:Ghanaian Football Clubs

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not especially experienced with categories, but I was under the impression that category redirects were supposed to be used sparingly, perhaps for common mistakes users would be likely to make. This doesn't seem to be such a redirect. --BDD (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 06:43, 26 November 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:Uncle Grandpa

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cat has 3 pages. Series it covers is roughly new (2013). I don't see why this cartoon needs a separate category all its own. Paper Luigi T • C 04:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, it seems that there are only two pages in this category; the series itself and the list of episodes. That said, the spin-off series, Secret Mountain Fort Awesome and its own episode list could probably be added. How about Peter Browngardt? Are series creators typically included in these categories? If Uncle Grandpa and Secret Mountain Fort Awesome each had character lists, then this would probably be worth keeping. As it is though, I'm sort of on the fence. I'll abstain from voting, but there probably wouldn't be any harm in deleting this for now. It can always be brought back sometime down the road, if more articles are ever created. --Jpcase (talk) 22:25, 10 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.

Cyprus youth international footballers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only the top (major) youth national teams from each country should be given it's own category and the lower youth levels grouped together. – Michael (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:11, 26 November 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:Solitary Animals

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. This is an exceptionally well-argued debate, and I am glad of the great assistance it provides to a closing admin who has no expertise in the area. My delete conclusions is based on the fact that the keepers have not persuaded the weightier deleters that there is a clear-enough rule that can be followed in populating this category due to the many and varied types of behaviour a particular animal might have, which variations cannot be expressed by the category alone. It is observed that a/the list could do this job with the degree of subtlety and analysis it requires. -Splash - tk 21:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Random and rather subjective category. Animals could be categorized by hundreds of different physical traits or behaviour, but we don't because whether an animal has brown fur, or has four legs or is solitary or gregarious is not an essential defining feature. BabelStone (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I don't have anything to say. You can delete the category. ZSpeed (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking. Is there a process in which categories are approved?ZSpeed (talk) 13:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be a nice idea! But I don't think there is. I'd say delete the cat. You can see here why I hesitated to propose that myself... Eric talk 16:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not easy to determine what is an appropriate category, especially if you're new to Wikipedia. As a rule of thumb, if you want to create a category that will apply to dozens or hundreds of articles then think twice about it, because there is probably a good reason the category has not already been created. And if you still think it would be a good idea then it might be a good idea to raise it at the appropriate Wikipedia project (WikiProject Animals in this case) first. BabelStone (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a remark, we do clasify animals which have four legs. Diego (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no we don't. We classify by Tetrapod, which is a superclass within the formal biological classification system, and includes descendants of four-limbed vertebrates. Some tetrapods have lost their limbs (eg snakes). I hardly think people would say that the Eagle has four legs, either. So, your comment is misplaced and inaccurate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An eagle has four limbs, though. What this shows is that if you stay with the scientific terms used in biology definitions, all those doubts about the ambiguity of the common words disappear, and you can have perfectly defined categories. If you insist in using the plain meaning of the word of course it will introduce uncertainty - but that doesn't mean that the category is badly defined, only that you're using it wrong. Diego (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But a snake doesn't, and a snake is a tetrapod. That to me demonstrates that a biological classification based on a well-established category tree is reasonable, but 4-legged or 4-limbed animals would not be.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I said. I didn't say "a list exists, therefore we don't need a category" - instead I made the argument that this is one of those cases, and we have many, where lists are appropriate but categories are not. The reason is that I haven't found reliable sources that have a consensus-agreed-upon categorization of "solitary" animals, and what this means exactly. It's true, some scientific papers will call animal X solitary, but then you can find a scientific paper on the same animal talking about it's social behavior traits. They will also say things like "This animal is relatively asocial" - what does that mean? How can we categorize based on that? Finally, different species of the same order or genus can exhibit different social behavior - for example, you added Octopus, but at least one species of Octopus is *not* solitary: [[14]]. By categorizing them, we are basically saying "All octopus are asocial/solitary/whatever", even if that's not the case. If we had a list, we could say "The Octopus is often considered a solitary animal, meeting with its mate only to reproduce, but they exhibit hierarchical social behavior in laboratory conditions and in constrained environments, and there are several species that live in groups" - you can't say all that in a category. OTOH, claiming a species uses tools is just that - a claim that some members of a species have been seen to use tools. Please show me these biologist-agreed-upon categorizations of levels of animal social interaction, with membership lists by species. My guess is, you won't find it. Ultimately, solitary is a subjective/descriptive term, and it may well be true that most octopii are relatively solitary, but exceptions are bad for categorization.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to say "The Octopus is often considered a solitary animal, meeting with its mate only to reproduce...". You can say that in the Octopus article, and link that article from the category so that interested readers can find it. Wikipedia categories are primarily navigational devices, not computational ontologies. Claiming that articles in a category must exhibit binary true-false properties is a red herring (as well as your false dichotomy implying that a solitary animal can't have social traits) - all we need is that the topics of those articles are verifiably members of a general class as defined by the sources. We are not doing math here, but categorizing information for later retrieval. Diego (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand categorization then. For set categories, at least, entries should exhibit such true-false properties, because membership itself is binary; categories which are at risk of more subjective criteria are frequently brought here to be killed off. Please read Wikipedia:OCAT#SUBJECTIVE - "Solitary" is a good example of such a subjective adjective. It's not clear from any sources I've seen how much solitary behavior an animal must exhibit, and at what points in its life, and whether both males and females need to exhibit this behavior to merit the category of "solitary". Yes, wikipedia categories are navigational in nature, but they are also not supposed to be subjective, which this one is, that's the bottom line. What exactly will establish that an octopus is a solitary animal per RS? 10 papers calling them solitary? Is the Octopus' form of solitary/asocial behavior similar to the asocial/solitary behavior of the bear or the leopard - e.g. are there common characteristics which define "solitary"? What about Eledone, a whole genus of octopus considered "social", or Octopus joubini, O. briareus, O. bimaculoides which live in high densities? At what point are there enough exceptions to the general "solitary" behavior pattern such that Octopus no longer qualifies as "solitary"? Again, please bring me the sources that define the consensus view of what "solitary" means, and then which place species into this continuum. Additionally, given that you want to categorize based on subjective adjectives, shall we also start to categorize social animals as well? There is a vast literature on this topic. To give you a flavor, here is a chapter on the social behavior of octopi [15] - note how the author describes several different types of behavior that exhibit social or asocial traits, such as avoidance or tolerance of conspecifics, toleration of crowding, formation of size-based dominance relationships, territoriality, clumping aggregations, or young Octopus rubescens forming shoals off the coast of California. When you sum all this up, you basically get "Octopi are generally asocial, but they have lots of complex social interactions when living close together, and there are several exceptions, including some species which group in shoals". That's not a good basis for categorization.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I disagree with you, therefore I don't understand Wikipedia? Under your criterion we couldn't have categories for Category:Skyscrapers (when does one building start being "tall"?) or Category:Edible plants (whether something is "edible" is subject to much more uncertainty than whether an animal lives in herds. Does "wood" count as edible even if it can't be digested? There are people with allergy to nuts! are those edible?). The criterion for defining categories has always been whether we can verify the inclusion of the item in the category, not that the category itself is binary.
All those complexities you introduce are up to biologists to assess, not Wikipedians. If a species has been classified as nongregarious (the precise term, not the informal adjective), of course that creates a well defined classification. Your arguments at most amount for a renaming to Category:Nongregarious animals, not for deletion. Diego (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nongregarious animals are not the same as solitary animals. Again, if you want to make an argument to keep, you need to bring some sources that define these terms clearly, and classify animals accordingly. When I looked at some literature on nongregarious animals, it had phrases like "relatively nongregarious", showing that this is also not a black and white categorization, but rather a qualitative assessment of the degree of social interaction they regularly exhibit. As for skyskrapers, there are institutes which have more precise definitions of tall buildings, and it would be reasonable to recategorize based on these more solid definitions vs the vague skyskrapers which doesn't have a firm definition. As for edible, I don't think there's as much uncertainty as you note. In any case, edibility is simpler to determine than the collection of different social behaviors which make an animal gregarious/social/asocial/solitary, because these behaviors vary over time, across species, across geographies, and with different ecological circumstances, whereas a given species of plant will almost always either be edible, or not. You are right that at the end of the day, perhaps we don't always achieve pure black/white, but I do think we should get as close as we can, and in this particular case my judgement and the judgement of others !voting is that this categorization falls too close to subjectivity.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP (in particular WP:NOEFFORT, WP:UGLY). Diego (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATA (which, by thee way, is an essay) is primarily about articles. Some parts of it may (also) be applicable to categories, but some parts are really only applicable to articles.WP:UGLY etc say we shouldn't delete an article just because it's poor quality (e.g. incomplete or messy). Such an article may not do much harm (e.g. it may have few inlinks and may have cleanup tags warning readers) and, most importantly, it may contain cited encyclopedic information which would be lost from WP if the article is deleted. The costs/benefits of a category can not be assessed in exactly the same way. DexDor (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any more valid your argument that a new category should be created in a perfect state and only after requesting permission in the form of previous consensus, and still doesn't answer the ultimate question: how in your opinion does deleting this category improve Wikipedia? Diego (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it elevates to the level of "in-out" the notion of "solitary" animals, which is nonetheless subjective; it's bad for wikipedia because it's misleading to users. I've given copious examples above that your addition of Octopus to the category is problematic, because while often described as such, there are species of octopus and circumstances under which the octopus is anything but solitary. I would expect that many other animals would have similar cases. "Solitary" is a fuzzy topic - how solitary must an animal be before it gets in this category? What if the males are solitary, but the females are gregarious? Attempting to categorize a whole package of behaviors and defining inclusion criteria for in/out makes this the very essence of a subjective category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it surfaces what bothers you - let's turn it into actionable information. See, that potential problem you identify doesn't mean that be should delete the whole thing, as it can be dealt with. Don't you see that you're projecting your own assumptions onto the general readership? The category would only be confusing to those readers who share the same preconception that the category would describe a binary black/white property of the animals included (and would be useful to any other reader). However, it only takes that we describe the inclusion criteria in the category page in order to dispel those preconceptions and making clear how readers should interpret the inclusion of a species in the category, thus avoiding the possible confusion you describe.
For cases like for example the oceanic whitetip shark, described by a reliable source as primarily solitary, (but) observed in "feeding frenzies" when a food source is present. Such exceptions merit a detailed discussion of each unclear entry on a case-by-case basis, but they don't invalidate the validity of the topic for species clearly described as "solitary", "primarily solitary" or even "solitary during long periods of their life cycle"; a reader can find that detailed description by following the link to the article and looking for the explanation of the species common behavior, plus possible exceptions to it. If your point is that making it easy for interested readers to find the articles containing the detailed information (where exceptions and nuances are explained in detail) is a bad thing, I can't agree with that. Diego (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A list that is sourced to various literature descriptions of what "solitary" means, that discusses how literature defines "solitary", and that elaborates for each animal species of interest the types of gregarious or solitary behavior they engage in with links to the article in question could indeed be useful, but as a list. As a category, we are performing original research, by suggesting that the subjective adjective "solitary" has some clear definition in the literature or that scientists are agreed upon what it means, which no-one has demonstrated yet; indeed, all sorts of different categorizations of behavior, as I noted above, are discussed in the literature, there isn't an overarching "gregarious/non-gregarious" or "solitary/non-solitary" binary divide that any literature I've found defines clearly. This is simply too nuanced and subjective to work as a category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

set categories on the other hand are making a claim through membership that the entity in question is indeed a member of the set

You're right there -

and that others, by their absence, are not

but here's where you are totally off base. You simply cannot consider meaningful the absence of an article from the category - it could be that we can't confidently assess whether it belongs, or even that it belongs to the category but no Wikipedian has managed to include the article yet. Inclusion in the category means that we can tell with confidence that the article belongs to the set; its absence only can mean that we don't have such confidence. That's why it doesn't make sense to interpret categories as mathematical binary sets - they're more of a three-valued logic. No, the proper way to indicate that an article X is not an Y is to create an opposite category "X that are not Y" (that gives more information than the mere absence from "X that are Y").

Insisting that categories must be born perfect would make them incredibly less useful. As you say, it would prevent us to create many categories on perfectly valid topics, just to try to follow an impossible-to-met technicality.

As a category, we are performing original research And again, I cannot accept that the topic being valid or invalid depends on the way we decide to give format to the information within the project. The topic is valid if we include it in a list, but if we spread exactly the same information within the relevant articles it's suddenly original research? Either the topic is a valid one and can be classified with a category, or it isn't valid and it wouldn't qualify for a list article either. Now that we're at it, I haven't seen that the editors wanting to delete this category for its imprecision have jumped to fix the purported ambiguities found at List of solitary animals. If this is so incredibly confusing to readers, how is it that you're not running to fix it a.s.a.p.? Diego (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of solitary animals is up next for deletion, as it's totally unsourced and doesn't have clear inclusion criteria. We need someone who has an understanding of socio-biology literature to determine the right title and inclusion criteria, but IMHO solitary is not it. In general, we have many cases where lists are acceptable while categories are not - anything which is subjectively defined can nonetheless exist as a list in certain cases, but usually not as a category. For another example, we have lists of award winners, even if we have deleted the associated categories. "Listify and delete" is a relatively frequently used suggestion here, so, no, you're wrong that if a list exists a category must as well. Again this comes down to subjectivity - you haven't brought forth, still, any literature which defines the concept of "solitary", so for now it is simply a subjective adjective used by some researchers to describe different patterns of behavior in the hugely diverse animal kingdom. As such it's a bad idea for a category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should have a higher bar on fuzzyness/clarity for set categories vs topic cats like Philosophy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is beyond the scope of this discussion, but you raise the point that what we are looking at here is broader than this category. So rather than waste more bandwidth here, I say keep and take your broader concerns farther up the food chain because you are looking at an issue that is probably impossible to decide on a case-by-case basis as we are doing here. Montanabw(talk) 18:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's long-standing practice that topic categories have much more flexibility in their contents, since being included in the category is simply claiming that article X is rather closely related to topic Y - set categories on the other hand are making a claim through membership that the entity in question is indeed a member of the set, and that others, by their absence, are not. There is a big difference between our criteria for inclusion in Category:American women and Category:Women_in_the_United_States, for example; it's a difference of a "is-a" relationship and a "is-related-to" relationship. I don't think we need a separate discussion to establish long-standing practice.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not something people pull out of their butt, it's used as a general classification. Montanabw(talk) 22:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you define a "clear yes or no definition"? And why do many existing categories not have them?Diego (talk) 19:44, 23 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.
More