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.
Keep I would say fiction about health is distinct from medical thrillers, etc. Medical experimentation, medical lawsuits, angels of mercy, etc have little to do with health (other than dying); while immortality, TB, AIDS fiction have less to do with medical than health. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's practically empty, and is subsumed into the new category. What's the point of keeping it? Your distinction between medical fiction and health fiction is not as good as distinction as you suggest. Fences&Windows20:02, 23 May 2010 (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: Seems redundant to other categories like Category:Health, Category:Exercise, etc. Seems to only exist for the purposes of a portal, but it's not being used and isn't necessary - probably as it's so vague what the category is meant for. Fences&Windows18:25, 22 May 2010 (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:Critically endangered species risks[edit]
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: Similar to some of the creator's other categories on this CfD page, this category makes an WP:OC#ARBITRARY argument that Gulf of Mexico oil spills are risks for "critically endangered species." My reply: once a species has reached the stage where it is groupable under Category:Critically endangered species, there are no end of risks to the species' continued survival, oil spills just being one of a myriad. Let me just add that if my CfDs of User:Nopetro's categories seem like piling on, User:Cgingold has already raised these issues here, to no avail. So CfDs would seem to be the next logical step. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, his Category:Deepwater Horizon oil spill has only one valid article, on the spill itself. The other three category contents are: an article on the Deepwater Horizon platform, one on the oil field on which it sits, and a kind of turtle. If no one nominates this one, I will. This editor seems to feel that categories can be used to create associations between things. Hopefully the comments at these CfDs and Cgingold's advice to him will act as a guide for future category creation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons that Shawn in Montreal has ably explained. Nopetro appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose & function of categories. Cgingold (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2010 (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. Just created, no apparent usefulness. No well-defined inclusion criteria; neither "celebrity" nor "famous people" is much better than a subjective term. Fundamentally indiscriminate, not falling under any of the recognized standards for appropriate categories. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a specious category based on vague criteria that singles out inclusion in an arbitrary grouping. Adds no substantive value to the articles upon which it is placed. That these individuals are celebrity offspring is well covered in each article already. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteasWP:OCAT; not, in and of itself, a defining characteristic that links the categorized (afflicted?) individuals in any genuinely meaningful way. Bearcat (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability is not inherited. The children of celebrities are NN, unless notable in theri own right, so should not have a category. The concept seems to be that the notable subject is the child of notable person, a sportsman, actor, etc. The headnote excludes politicians (but why?). "Celebrity" is too broad to provide a meaningful category, but it might be possible to draw together (separately) members of acting dynasties, sporting dynasties, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2010 (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:UpmergetoCategory:Syndicalists per WP:OC#ARBITRARY. While I'm generally in favour of occupations by women categories where relevant, being a syndicalist is not an "occupation." Furthermore, an inspection of sibling categories in the parent Category:People by political orientation reveals that in much larger category trees for Communists, Fascists, Socialists, etc., no women categories exist. I can't see a reason to make an exception for this tiny category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, one can change the personalities. Notat is not only a CEO, is an institucional politician. And a similar category exists in the French Wikipedia. In any case, it is important know there are also females in this fields. So, I am going to outcategorinzing Notat and include the proposed by you. In which category include the trade union female leaders?. Regards --Nopetro (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2010 (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 articles and categories herein are not about fishing bans. It simply groups some oil spills which have necessitated halts to fishing operations, and an article on the NOAA itself. Fishing is more likely to be "banned" in areas due to declining stocks, but I am not aware of any articles on such bans. Unless bona fide articles on fishing bans exist, this category only serves to further muddy the waters. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons that Shawn in Montreal has ably explained. Nopetro appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose & function of categories. Cgingold (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2010 (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: These seem to cover the same area, simply under different name. The dividing line between "in popular culture" and "in fiction" is blurry to say the least. A merge would consolidate this area, avoid duplication, and aid navigation. Fences&Windows15:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might think, but lots of the popular culture items include fiction, and in reality these categories and their contents differ in name only (depending on whether the article/category creator chose "in fiction" or "in popular culture"), which is not a useful distinguishing feature. Fences&Windows20:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, fiction does not exclude fiction not written in dead-tree novels. Films, TV and comics are all 'fiction'. You'll notice that there are few topics and categories for which there is both an "in popular culture" and "in fiction" entry, showing how they are redundant to each other. Fences&Windows15:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Fiction is precise. Popular culture is imprecise. When I first edited in WP, many articles had a "popular culture" section, in which editors collected trivial literary, film, political and other allusions to the subject. These were essentially dumping grounds for trivial (non-encylopaedic) trash, and were long ago (and rightly) deleted wholesale. We should not give occasion for any such additions to be made in furture. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2010 (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.
The result of the discussion was:rename all. As an administrative note, I will release these to the bot slowly over the next few days. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This change will allow these categories pick up the non-MLB players (Negro league baseball players and minor league players who never appeared in the major leagues). These non-MLB groups are too small to justify separate categorization by state. BRMo (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- why not create Category:Baseball players from state with Category:Major League Baseball players from state as a subcategory and leave the non-MLB players in the parent category? With this schema there is a loss of information. older ≠ wiser14:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and BRMo. This does create a possibility to add these categories to non-MLB players. The idea to have this be a parent category for MLB players is also a good idea. Right now, the only parent category is "Sportspeople." --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2010 (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.
Did you move the entries into the other category? It's good to alert people to recent changes so they can make an informed decision. That said, I'm fine with this. Fences&Windows18:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any page that had {{Subcat guideline}} with the parameter "Topic guideline" had that template removed by Gnevin and replaced with the above-mentioned category. Going by the edit history, the following pages had their categories changed:
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:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Central Pacific Theater[edit]
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:UpMerge. Up merge to the sole parent's parent since the parent is already nominated for up merging. By creating these subcategories it creates the impression that the other subcategories in the parent are not in the Pacific theater. Another option would be to create Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Pacific Theater but I'm not convinced about the utility of that particular category. I do hope this is the end of nominations in this area for a while, but the deeper you dig, the more problems.Vegaswikian (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2010 (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.
RelistedatWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 30#Category:Medical fiction — ξxplicit 20:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
