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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete all - per the outcome of this test CFD, categorizing films by the festivals at which they appeared is overcategorization. Films can appear at dozens or hundreds of festivals. Otto4711 (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. A list of films that appeared at a particular film festival in a particular year is probably valid, but a category is not. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2008 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Looks like someone started to manually move this. I have no idea what the name should be. Obviously some sort of merge needs to happen. --- RockMFR18:22, 29 March 2008 (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.
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.
Suggest keep: the content of these categories is geographical, not political. Ireland's provincial boundaries are handy subdivisions for this subject. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply There are only 32 counties in the whole of Ireland, and only 26 in the Republic of Ireland, so all Ireland-by-county category listings display handily on one screen. There is nothing handy about unnecessarily subdividing a very workable and consistent category structure by splitting it into four sub-categories; it just means that the reader has to take an extra step to find the articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I believe it's more appropriate for geographical articles to be categorised on a geographical basis, rather than with an overly strict adherence to political subdivisions. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply If had you studied the categories more carefully, you might have noticed that Landforms in Ireland are already categorised geographically — by county, which is the most widely-used geographical division in Ireland (counties are used postal purposes, for constituencies in general elections, and for county councils, which are the main unit of local government). What you are trying to do is to add an extra layer of geographical categorisation, breaking up the existing categories into smaller chunks which impede navigation with no benefit to the reader. Per WP:CAT, the purpose of categories is to help readers to navigate between similar articles, and you have yet offer any reason why subdividing a category such as Irish loughs helps a reader to navigate amongst the county categories: you have simply craeted a situation where the reader can no longer get a list of all the loughs-by-county categories, and has to navifate between four superfluous sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Rest assured I have studied the categories carefully. You undermine your argument by referring to Category:Irish loughs, which unusually does not have an ROI subdivision. One could equally argue that none of the categories should have. When users wish to see all the counties on one page, they simply click on the plus symbol beside the subcategories. The reasons you give for using the county boundaries exclusively all relate to human activities. These are geographical categories, for which the four provinces, roughly equal in area, are ideal. I don't intend to create a Category:Politics of Connacht, for the reasons you have given above. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no particular reason to group differently for human activities, because all the categories are geographical: some are geographical categories of landforms, but the politics categories (to take your example) are geographical groupings of human activities. In each case, the only geographical category with a "natural" basis is the island of Ireland: the provinces of Connacht etc are every bit as much a political construct as the countie.
You are also still missing (or ignoring) the point on user benefit. There are at most 32 categories-by-county for landforms, loughs etc. Even if the reader uses the plus buttons, how does it help the reader to force them through the tedium of expanding the intermediate by-province categories to find the by-county categories which contain the actual articles? I see no evidence that these categories help the reader in any way, just an argument that they might not be a great hassle, and on that basis we could create dozens of subdivisions in the hope that the reader would just press enough + buttons. Your claim at the start was that these are "handy subdivisions", but you still haven't demonstrated any way in which they help the reader. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Your argument makes little sense to me. 32 subcategories for every Irish category is excessive. When I delve into categories, I tend to start from an article. A search leads there first, not to categories. I've never looked through articles the way you describe. Why should readers interested in Irish landforms "be forced", as you put it, to go through the categories based on the Irish border? Why should readers interested in landforms of the British Isles be forced to see the counties of Britain and Ireland broken up and separated into subcategories? Isn't that what categorisation is about? By handy, I mean the provinces are roughly equal in area, which generally equates to having a similar number of landforms. This definitely does not apply to the counties, some of whom dwarf others in area. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I think I see what you are trying to achieve: you want to get rid of the by-county categories, but you are going about it in the wrong way. You say that "32 subcategories for every Irish category is excessive", but your by-province categories will not reduce the number of by-county categories — all that your categories do is to add an extra layer. If you want to get rid of the by-county categories, then what you need to do is to to propose the merger of the by-county categories to by-province categories. However, if that's what you want, may I suggest that you first discuss your idea at WikiProject Ireland? We spent a lot of time last autumn sorting and organising and standardising the by-county categories, and if you want a change it would be a good idea to run your suggestion past the editors most familiar with those categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting we get rid of the county divisions, but the categorisation seems somewhat arbitrary at the moment. You prefer using political boundaries (and I see the logic in this) yet we are also using non-political divisions, such as Category:Geography of Ireland, Category:British Isles and Category:Western Europe. When I wrote that 32 was excessive, I meant it is a lot of subcategories for one category, when they could easily be broken down into provinces. As for extra layers, these categories nestle in dozens already, I don't see how that's an issue. Mejor Los Indios (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mejor, 32 sub-cats all display fine on one screenful; I see no way in which they are excessive, and have illustrated direct user harm in breaking them down. You are right that at some points the category structure is already quite deep, and you have demonstrated no user benefit in making it even deeper.
As to "political categories", I'm surprised you are still pushing that point. You don;t seem to have noticed that the provinces are every bit as much a political construct as the counties, and you are neither advocating the creation of any categories based on non-political geography nor the removal of any categories based on political geography: you just want to add an extra layer of categories based on political geography. The reason for categorisation-by-county is not that it is a political form of geography, but simply the fact that counties are the most widely-used division of Ireland, and the category system works best when consistency is maintained.
There is nothing arbitrary about any of this. The Island of Ireland contains 32 counties, and these form the basis of all geographical categories on the island (whether of people, politics, landforms, schools, media or whatever). However, there are two states on the Island of Ireland, so those basic geographical groupings are divided between the two states. There's nothing unusual about this; the same thing happens in (for example) North America, which is divided between the states of the USA and the provinces and territories of Canada. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 2 April 2008 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem to require a category with only four articles. Being a television show, I can't see it gaining any further articles to justify the cat. treelotalk12:30, 29 March 2008 (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.
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.
Categories for award winners need to meet the overcategorization guidelines relating to award-winners, lest the many, many awards which any person or thing might win overwhelm the article. WP:CAT specifies that categories should be "defining" attributes; awards like "Noble Prize" are considered "defining" because, for example, people will usually describe the winners as "Nobel Prize winners" in front of both general and subject-specific audiences. I do not think that "CRASH Smash Winners" is quite at that level of popular knowledge and prestige. The award may well be notable, and it should include a list of winners if appropriate in its own article; and winning games should include the CRASH Smash award in their articles if appropriate; but CRASH Smash award winners is not the sort of defining feature that needs the indexing feature that categories provide. --Lquilter (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Crash was a magazine in the same era as Your Sinclair and Sinclair User and handed out awards in a similar fashion as current magazines do now. While games are noted for the awards they receive on the individual pages, this case is overcategorisation. To put it another way, a magazine article on a video game would cite BAFTA video game nominations and awards, but would be unlikely to mention the awards a rival publication has bestowed on the title. A newspaper or magazine advert might for a game might list the awards it has won in the same way a film advert would list star ratings from Empire and Total Film, yet one publication would not refer to another's award outright. In the same way that you would look to Oscars, Emmys or BAFTAs, you would look to similar videogame awards being listed here. In this case, the CRASH Smash simply does not make the notability grade. Gazimoff (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree here - Your Sinclair and Sinclair User did not hand out "awards", CRASH was the only magazine at the time to specifically honour high-ranking games. I think getting a good review in CRASH meant a great deal at the time, in fact there were even a number of "Crash Smash Collection" compilations (volume 1 is reviewed here), yet there weren't similar releases for games that got high ratings in other magazines. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk10:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I distinctly remember Sinclair User giving out awards. They had a triangular shaped logo if I remember right, although it was some twenty years ago now. Be that as it may though, the argument still stands. I'd argue that an award from almost any magazine is not notable to warrant this level of overcategorisation, be it contemporary or historic.--Gazimoff (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2008 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge all 3 into new category. These seem to be essentially covering the same ground using different terminology. I don't really care which is the target category, but I've suggested a new category of "Afro-Australian" (with a hyphen) since the main article is at Afro-Australian. (There is an article called African Australian, and it is currently undergoing an AFD, but even if it is kept it appears to be a less-commonly used term, but I'm not sure about these things and I may be wrong.) If anyone has a good reason for preferring a different name for the target category, that's fine with me. I've posted an invitation at the Australian Wikipedians notice board inviting participation. Notified creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk)06:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator) In light of this information, I'm certainly willing to wait and think it would be beneficial to do so; but I'm not sure if this CFD could be suspended now that a voter has expressed an opinion (below). I'll let an admin make that call. I should not have made the nomination until the AFD was complete; in the future I'll be wary of jumping the gun like this. Good Ol’factory(talk)15:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Below the current Category:African Australians 'continental' scale, you will find a number of 'African' nation subcategores .. and so also for the other continental scale categories!
Comment To avoid both whether the hyphen should be used or not and having to have knowledge of local naming convention "Afro-British people" versus "African Americans" (the later to the exclusion of non-Black Africans and possibly the former too ??), I favour the naming pattern Fooian of Booian descent. I support here seeing Category:Australians of African descent (to describe any Australian citizen with whole or partial African ancestrial or national descent) Mayumashu (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support last suggestion - though I am English, I know this is a minefield. The "Black" category needs care that any contents are correctly assinged to the new "African" or "indigenous" categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all unnecessary racial categories - all the confusion shown by the foregoing debate seems only to highlight the pure POV/unnecessary nature of these categories in particular, but racial categories generally. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2008 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete: "Stupidity" is not term that can be defined in an encylopedic way, so categories will be included by a subjective standard. Could also be used as an attack category. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk)06:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Existence of an article doesn't imply that a category is justified. What's your point? I think it's telling, though, that you didn't add the page you cite to the category, which presumably should have been one of the first ones added, but instead chose to include Airline sex discrimination policy. That seems to me to be a POV application of a non-neutrally named category, perhaps as a means of making a point. Good Ol’factory(talk)07:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added the cat, because I'd stumbled across many articles which seemed to fall into such a category, but couldn't find an existing one. Meachly (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may well feel that certain incidents/situations have resulted from human stupidity, but in most cases it's impossible to prove that that's why it happened, let alone finding a good definition for "stupidity", and applying a category to such an article is entirely subjective. Good Ol’factory(talk)07:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The above was posted by a user who has a track record of dogmatically reverting all posts from the creator of this category. Meachly (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:27, 29 March 2008 (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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a category for animation produced by BONES studios, but people keep mistaking it for a category for actual bones. I proposed renaming it "Bones (studio)" (after the main article), but maybe another editor can think of a better name. Nohansen (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2008 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete: The definition for this category is "A category showing facts about various kinds of animals." Don't all subcategories of Category:Animals do this? Delete because of the vague and undefined purpose of the category. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk)04:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. I think this category was created to produce a "Did you know?" like classification as it contains items that might not be that familiar to the layperson.--Lenticel(talk)14:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lquilter as vague and redundant. However, the nominator is wrong to suggest that all subcategories of Category:Animals do this. I wish GO was right, but unfortunately there is an inclusionist bias amongst many editors who means that WP:V is very laxly enforced -- even if an article is wholly unreferenced, current guidelines do not explicitly list that as grounds for speedy deletion. So I presume that some of the articles on animals include the usual mix of POV, speculation and nonsense which characterise far too many articles. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Delete while a distinction can be drawn given WP's standard not of accuracy (i.e., "facts") but of verifiability (i.e., "someone said so"), the category isn't being used for that purpose and such purposing certainly not a good idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2008 (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.
