< February 27 March 1 >

February 28

Category:Pseudonymous sportspeople

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) 23:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is a notable intersection. Who knows how many sportspeople have changed their names before going into professional play (we actually have a list at List_of_pseudonyms#Sportspeople). Obviously, all pro wrestlers would be in this category, but it's quite possible many other competitors have a "competition" name. I can see the value of this for writers and artists, who publish work, sometimes under a different name, in order to mask their persona, tell a different story, etc, but I see little value in this intersection for sportspeople (I would likely feel similarly about the many pseudonyms used by musicians, actors, etc). Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Whatever. I was tidying up Category:Pseudonyms because it was starting to fill up with sports folk when it's not a category for individual articles. You can tidy as you see fit as long as they're not just dumped back in.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: It may be appropriate for some people to be categorized under both their real name and their pseudonym (see Wikipedia:Rcat#Alternative_names_for_articles), but it may not be obvious whether a particular name is a pseudonym or not so separate categories (e.g. "Sportspeople by pseudonym") are not appropriate. Note: There is an administration category Category:Redirects from pseudonyms. DexDor (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I've said I don't care if there's a separate subcategory for sportspeople as long as container categories aren't filled up with individual sports people articles. As to the comments about article titles, whether they're pseudonymous, frauds, hoaxes, stage names etc. the usual practice is to include the articles (if source-notable for the importance of the assumed name to their life) whether their article title uses the name or not, e.g. Dwayne Johnson would be on some theoretical grouping of people who worked under an assumed name, actor or wrestler.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Images affected by the September 2008 image loss bug

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) 22:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Images affected by the September 2008 image loss bug (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Tidyup. This category is probably now unnecessary. Its content is one userspace js file. DexDor (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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.

People with nautical occupations, sports or hobbies

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; however, there seems to be general agreement that some clean up could be warranted, including some transferring of content to Category:Marine occupations. After some sort of clean up occurs, a re-nomination could be appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This category was created in 2004, so if we delete it it might be one of the longest-lasting categories I've yet seen... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition the nomination contains a non-argument based on something that isn't happening. "Olympic swimmers" isn't a nautical anything and doesn't seem to have ever been linked to this category. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that's fair enough, in which case rename to Category:Maritime people and purge of the rowers and windsurfers, etc.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't purge rowers from maritime people. I wouldn't say surfers weren't people engaged in an ocean-related occupation. There are other occupational groupings that contain both professional and amateur activities and individuals. I don't really think "occupations" should be more strictly narrowed to only "serious paid jobs" although I completely understand the temptation. But if a user has an interest in or was looking for people who spend their lives on the water for some reason, they won't necessarily care if the individuals were getting paid or not. The Category:People by occupation classifies people by their notable occupations, not their paid work. It's the same problem as Category:Fishers with the same solution: don't worry about the mixing that much.__ E L A Q U E A T E 10:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Maritime occupations should not be a subcategory of a "People with ..." category. DexDor (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Tony Award winning musicals

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 a bit of a mess of a discussion. Clearly, there is consensus for the point that we should not have a category that contains the article for every musical that has ever won any type of Tony Award. Mid-discussion, the scope of the category was changed to include articles about only those musicals which won the Tony Award for "best musical". While the case was argued that this would be an appropriate category, I can't see that a consensus developed that we should rename the category to reflect that. Therefore, the category will be deleted according to consensus. However, nothing prevents a user from creating a category intended to house the articles about musicals which won the Tony Award for best musical. It would then be open to those who oppose such a category to nominate it for deletion, and we could have a more focused discussion on that issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment OK, fair enough, but who removes the c. 150 articles for musicals that have won a, not the, Tony?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I disagree with Blethering Scot, because the category would still be redundant with the template for Best Musical, and far less well-organized than it is. See also WP:OC/AWARD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MarnetteD: now contains 66 article the exact number that won best musical. Simply needs a rename no need to create another cat as all data correct.Blethering Scot 01:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Fictional American Jews 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 3 articles. not a needed division JDDJS (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Fictional Hispanic and Latino American people 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles in this category. JDDJS (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Dallara racing cars

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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary sub-category. Dallara only build racing cars, and nothing else, so this is a needless disambiguator. Equally, it is not common practice to have this particular disambiguator used, where the company has a primary or major focus on motorsport: look at Category:Ferrari vehicles, Category:McLaren vehicles, Category:Maserati vehicles, Category:Lotus vehicles and Category:Lister vehicles for such practice, amongst many others. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Given that there is only a small handful of those categories in existence, and most of those are rather lacking in many of those firms' racing cars, I would rather suggest that they should all be upmerged. For example, the Alfa Romeo one contains 1 car, which arguably shouldn't even be in it, as it is a road car. The Ford racing cars also contains an inappropriate entry, and even one of its subcats (Category:Ford SVT vehicles) shouldn't be in there. The Lotus one has most of its racing cars in the regular cat. A lot of the Mercedes ones are as well. And the MG one doesn't even fit the naming structure at the moment - whilst also being out of scope. Common practice just doesn't seem to favour these. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:People from Ewing, Kentucky

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 2 entries. ...William 15:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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:Greek and Latin words found in species names

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) 22:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Greek and Latin words found in species names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Greek words found in species names
  • Propose deleting Category:New Latin
Nominator's rationale: The pages in these categories are mostly/all disambiguation pages (or pages like Ater and Slevini which probably should be a dab page although not currently tagged as such). As a minimum these categories should be renamed to something like "Disambiguation pages containing Latin species names", but we already have categories such as Category:Species Latin name abbreviation disambiguation pages (which are populated by a disambiguation template) and don't need such a proliferation of categories for dab pages. Note: The inclusion of "X. Foo" in a "Foo (disambiguation)" page is also dubious per WP:PTM. See also previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_19#Category:Latin_words_found_in_species_names. There is a List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names which should be moved (e.g. to Category:Biological nomenclature). Note: If this CFD results in delete (or rename) then Template:Species abbreviation should be changed (it probably shouldn't be placing pages in a category anyway). DexDor (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[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