< January 21 January 23 >

January 22

Category:Shipwrecks in the Gulf of Siam

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:Shipwrecks in the Gulf of Thailand, and category (not article) redirect. -Splash - tk 23:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This was listed as a speedy. I think I pulled it since I was going to object, and never listed it in the opposed section, but I could be wrong. In any case this should receive a full discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2014 (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:Twenty One Pilots

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) 00:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as too small for now (songs, albums, main article and template). It can be recreated later if we ever get more material such as a category for the bands' members, a discography and so on. Pichpich (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2014 (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:Archaeological Sites of Great Importance

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.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See also

cat  : Archaeological Sites of Exceptional Importance

These categories seem to be specific to Serbia, so should include (Serbia) in their title (as their main articles do), or "in Serbia" or some such. (otherwise they might be accidentally placed on places such as King Tut's Tomb)

Also since the categories are fairly small and very closely related, I might think of merging them Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2014 (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:Pet amphibians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. This is just housekeeping after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 29#Category:Pet_amphibians_.28etc.29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Pet amphibians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Pet procyonids
Nominator's rationale: A recent CFD concluded that species articles should be removed from these categories. Having removed species categories and also moved articles to more appropriate categories (e.g. Category:Amphibians in captivity) these 2 categories are now empty and hence can be deleted. DexDor (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2014 (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:Pet reptiles

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 23:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A recent CFD concluded that these categories should not contain species articles (i.e. some members of a species having been used as pets is not a defining characteristic of the species). Having been cleared out per that CFD the reptiles category should be renamed to match Category:Cats as pets etc and the subcategories (which now each contain just one article) can be upmerged. DexDor (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2014 (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:White Hispanic

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) 00:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE and WP:OC#EGRS. It's not clear to me how an editor determines that a person belongs in this category, or even precisely what the category means. Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Inclusion in that category appears to be based either on WP:SYNTHESIS or personal opinions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 11:08 am, Today (UTC−7)
Keep:Determination is based on ancestry. Hence, Ricardo Montalban is of pure Spanish Ancestry (both of his parents were immigrants to Mexico from Spain).

Meaning of category: Hispanic is an ehtno-linguistic category. People of all races belong to it. However, this does not elide the fact that people are treated differently according to their ancestry/appearance. Hence, a White hispanic enjoys privileges that a Black Hispanic does not. Topicality: I might also note how this subject has emerged in the context of racial politics in the USA (cf the Trevon Martin case and the discussion regarding Zimmerman's possible status as a White Hispanic. User: Alcazar77

This is a US centric classification with a strongly US centric bias. Almost everybody in Spain would be considered "White Hispanic" and all Spanish bio articles thus categorized. Also most Cubans, Argentinians and other non central-American Spanish speakers. Mostly this is a US political classification and if it is to be used should be backed up with an explicit reference that says those exact words. Zimmerman seems to be the only person where this is an important distinction. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost everybody in Spain would be considered "White Hispanic" and all Spanish bio articles thus categorized. Also most Cubans, Argentinians and other non central-American Spanish speakers." I don't see how this disqualifies the utility of the category. Hispanic, for example, is an even larger category, yet it is in WIKIPEDIA.White Hispanic, in comparison to Hispanic, is actually a smaller category.
"This is a US centric classification with a strongly US centric bias." the category has tremendous utility for Latin America, where White Hispanics enjoy a greater level of social prestige than Black and Amerind Hispanics (cf telenovelas, with their strongly White casts). User: Alcazar77 —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The related article is White Hispanic and Latino Americans and that article is stated as being American centric. White Latin American covers non-US locations and does have the advantage of including Brazil where race is also an issue. Hispanic, does not of course, cover Brazil. This category, as named doesn't serve the purpose intended and is too subjective. What benefit would there be to classify someone such as Pope Francis as a White Hispanic? He would meet the inclusion criteria. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a further example of the usefulness of this category in a Latin American context, here are two articles that discuss the privilege that White Hispanics enjoy on Spanish Language tv: http://www.sandraguzman.com/2011/03/is-there-racism-in-telenovelas.html User:Alcazar77 —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"What benefit would there be to classify someone such as Pope Francis as a White Hispanic? He would meet the inclusion criteria." It would indicate that he is a recipient of White Privilege, that he has not experienced the kinds of discrimination that Black and Amerind Hispanics face. User:Alcazar77
The pope, White Hispanic? Really? Bergoglio? Sívori? Please... --Coco Lacoste (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that Pope Francis has not experienced discrimination, it is because he has lived most of his life in Argentina. This category will become unreasonably large if adequately applied. Also, do people with Anglo-American fathers and Hispanic mothers, like George Bush III fit in this category, or do they need no identifiable non-white ancestry, in which case George Zimmerman, who clearly has African ancestry, does not fit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The related article is White Hispanic and Latino Americans and that article is stated as being American centric. White Latin American covers non-US locations and does have the advantage of including Brazil where race is also an issue. Hispanic, does not of course, cover Brazil. "That is an interesting suggestion. Perhaps White Latin American would be a more useful category label? Alcazar77
Delete: per Bbb23 and Geraldo Perez. Also, "Category:Latin American people of European descent" and "Category:People of indigenous peoples descent" cover that in a more neutral and accurate manner. --Coco Lacoste (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, "Category:Latin American people of European descent" and "Category:People of indigenous peoples descent" cover that in a more neutral and accurate manner." I'm not sure about that. Use of White conveys the sense of racial privilege that people like Borges enjoyed. User:Alcazar77 —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Doesn't even include the most notable use of the actual term "white hispanic" George Zimmerman":the problem with using Zimmerman is that his "White Hispanic" status was debated at the time (cf his Afro-Peruvian ancestry). User:Alcazar77 —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat my point. If the term is so controversial, we cant even apply it to people that have directly been called such by reliable sources, we certainly shouldn't be applying it to others on our own initiative. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I can't quite see how describing, say, Ricardo Montalban as a White Hispanic would be. In Montalban's case, his ancestry is entirely White (both parents being Spanish immigrants to Mexico). Alcazar77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcazar77 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, is this why we have an existing guideline that states "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people; however, race is not."? (As some other editors have noted.) – Wdchk (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2014 (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:Israeli engineer 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: KEEP. -Splash - tk 23:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Undersized - scan only finds 12 stubs for this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know, but 12 looks like like a good size for a stand alone category. Plus, there will be more in the future (and Israelis are known for their engineering).--Mishae (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not for a stub category - the minimum for that us 60. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:53, 23 January 2014 (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:British printmaker 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: NO CONSENSUS. -Splash - tk 23:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to have national categories for printmaker stubs until the top category for them (Category:Printmaker stubs) exists and exceeds a full page. Propose making a ((printmaker-stub)) to be its main tag. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strange assumptions. Why wouldn't someone interested in British art want to work on British art subjects? Sionk (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They would presumably have a UK-bio-stub or similar template as well. And the categoryintersection would solve selecting out printmakers; While we have no way to select printmaker stubs at all, except Brits, so no way for people to work on printmakers unless they only wanted to work on British ones. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2014 (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:Cycloalkene 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Cycloalkene stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting ((Cycloalkene-stub))
Nominator's rationale: A quick scan finds only 29 stubs - less than half of the required 60 for a stub category. Additionally, the category was proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2014/January#Category:Cycloalkene_stubs_.2F_.7B.7BCycloalkene-stub.7D.7D and rejected. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that it was rejected (by me) after the required waiting time (6 days, IIRC). I suggest indeed to delete as having a too narrow scope (note, that some of the compounds in the scan are not a cycloalkene - Manganocene, Sclarene, SB-612,111 and many others in the list of 28), and reasonable application of this would result in a plethora of tags (Desaspidin is besides a cycloalkene also an enol, a diene, a phenol, a phenol ether, a ketone, a diene; the mentioned enol has both the (cyclo)alkene and an alcohol functionality, and is a tautomer of the already mentioned ketone, which makes the decision of stub-sorting there also ambiguous). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:03, 22 January 2014 (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:Shapeshifting

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.e. do not merge). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not clear why there are two categories for what is essentially a fictional phenomenon. Articles in the parent cat are also about fictional/mythological stuff. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William 15:06, 22 January 2014 (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:Holly Brook albums

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: RELISTED. To check that this is indeed not the situation identified in the nomination. -Splash - tk 23:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two categories, this one and Category:Skylar Grey albums exist for the same person. The main article is Skylar Grey. I don't see this as a Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam situation. If so, then the albums should be split accordingly and the two categories should not have identical content. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:04, 22 January 2014 (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