Contents

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 14

March 14[edit]

Category:B.A.P[edit]

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:B.A.P (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems premature, given WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. The category contains only ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:B.A.P members and the article B.A.P. There are no categories or articles about albums, songs, concert tours, etc. that I can see. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The article on the hip hop group members would have the group name as its main article, so that this category is unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the navbox Template:B.A.P suffices for navigation. – Fayenatic L (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2012 (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.

Disambiguated constellations[edit]

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Orion constellationtoCategory:Orion (constellation)
• Category:Lynx constellationtoCategory:Lynx (constellation)
• Category:Leo constellationtoCategory:Leo (constellation)
• Category:Gemini constellationtoCategory:Gemini (constellation)
• Category:Draco constellationtoCategory:Draco (constellation)
• Category:Cygnus constellationtoCategory:Cygnus (constellation)
• Category:Cepheus constellationtoCategory:Cepheus (constellation)
• Category:Cassiopeia constellationtoCategory:Cassiopeia (constellation)
• Category:Cancer constellationtoCategory:Cancer (constellation)
• Category:Sculptor constellationtoCategory:Sculptor (constellation)
• Category:Sagittarius constellationtoCategory:Sagittarius (constellation)
• Category:Phoenix constellationtoCategory:Phoenix (constellation)
• Category:Pavo constellationtoCategory:Pavo (constellation)
• Category:Lupus constellationtoCategory:Lupus (constellation)
• Category:Libra constellationtoCategory:Libra (constellation)
• Category:Lepus constellationtoCategory:Lepus (constellation)
• Category:Eridanus constellationtoCategory:Eridanus (constellation)
• Category:Crater constellationtoCategory:Crater (constellation)
• Category:Corvus constellationtoCategory:Corvus (constellation)
• Category:Carina constellationtoCategory:Carina (constellation)
• Category:Columba constellationtoCategory:Columba (constellation)
• Category:Norma constellationtoCategory:Norma (constellation)
• Category:Mensa constellationtoCategory:Mensa (constellation)
• Category:Taurus constellationtoCategory:Taurus (constellation)
• Category:Vela constellationtoCategory:Vela (constellation)
• Category:Virgo constellationtoCategory:Virgo (constellation)
• Category:Indus constellationtoCategory:Indus (constellation)
• Category:Hydra constellationtoCategory:Hydra (constellation)
• Category:Hercules constellationtoCategory:Hercules (constellation)
• Category:Grus constellationtoCategory:Grus (constellation)
• Category:Auriga constellationtoCategory:Auriga (constellation)
• Category:Aries constellationtoCategory:Aries (constellation)
• Category:Ara constellationtoCategory:Ara (constellation)
• Category:Aquila constellationtoCategory:Aquila (constellation)
• Category:Aquarius constellationtoCategory:Aquarius (constellation)
• Category:Andromeda constellationtoCategory:Andromeda (constellation)
• Category:Pegasus constellationtoCategory:Pegasus (constellation)
• Category:Perseus constellationtoCategory:Perseus (constellation)
• Category:Pisces constellationtoCategory:Pisces (constellation)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These nominations are brought simply to conform the name formatting of the relevant article to that of the corresponding category. The articles are in the name format "FOO (constellation)", not "FOO constellation". These were opposed in the speedy section on the grounds of being "nonsensical and inelegant", which, I believe, is entirely subjective. I can just as easily allege that it is nonsensical and inelegant to have the article names and category names be in different formats. The relevant naming convention states: "Names of topic categories should be singular, normally corresponding to the name of a Wikipedia article." I don't know of any good reason to depart from this standard here: The name of the thing is "Orion", and it is a constellation. The name of the thing is not "Orion constellation". (It was also stated in opposition that "there is no need to distinguish them because of possible ambiguity with other categories having a similar name". I also disagree with this, as all of the names are inherently ambiguous without some disambiguation.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - rename meets the c2d speedy criteria in that the articles all appear to be Foo (constellation) I can't see any reason why the cat should be different from the article. If the article names are wrong then that should be addressed elsewhere first. MilborneOne (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if these are renamed, then the current versions should be retained as category redirects. 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— 70.24.245.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Comment My IP has been rolling over lately. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the constellations should have a consistent naming method "X constellation" would be good to make all constellation categories consistent with one-another. This eases using constellation categories, which unlike articles, are not redirected. You don't need to memorize what each and every article is named by what method to get the category. 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)— 70.24.245.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  But why the format of "X constellation"? The things are not individually called "X constellation". They are called "X", and they are constellations. I see absolutely no benefit to having a difference in naming structure between category and article in these cases. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, since you nominated the others to be renamed a different manner, they would become inconsistent with one another. If you nominated all constellation categories to use parenthesized constellation, then they would be consistent. I don't see any advantage to naming the categories in a multitude of ways, it makes it very hard to categorize things, or to access the categories to get at their contents by typing in X constellation (or "X (constellation)") if many of them do not use that form. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The same criticism could be made of so many category schemes that follow the category naming guidelines. We have ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Toledo, Spain, ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Tarragona, and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Santander, Cantabria. Each is a city in Spain. Why not make every one ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:CITY, Spain? Well, because each one matches the relevant article that the category is about. That's the convention. Same basic deal here. Any problems with wanting consistency in naming formats for categories can be dealt with by category redirects. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The articles for the constellations are of the form X constellation, until that changes; the categories should match. What Good Olfactory asks "why the format it's currently in" is always an interesting question, but for the editors of the constellation articles to decide not for us by dictating a lead-by-category naming approach unless things are totally in disarray, which by WP standards is quite a high bar. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The articles are not in the form X constellation. They are in the form X (constellation). That's the whole point of the nomination—to bring the categories into conformity with the articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  True true, my eyes are going down the tubes, actually I was reading the subcats not the articles, the cats should match the articles, which is to say, that these need handling individually as Good Olfactory has begun on the next page (er...ahem...tomorrow). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename All of the constellations were moved at least once, some more than once, ending up at the current "name (constellation)" locations. The categories were created before the moves and simply never caught up. I don't know why this is even slightly controversial. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - The title of a topic category almost always should match the title of its main article (see Wikipedia:Category names#General conventions and speedy renaming criterion C2D). I understand 70.24...'s reasoning but there needs to be a reason that the constellation categories, in particular, should be an exception to the general rule. For example, the same reasoning could be applied to a category such as Category:Census divisions of Ontario to argue for appending ", Ontario" to the end of each subcategory; however, numerous CFD discussions have done away with such titles when the article title is not similarly disambiguated. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename All to match main articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nominator. No compelling reason, that the categories should follow the main articles. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to match articles for consistency.
  Aside: I agree that all those main articles should probably have "(constellation)" in their name. Googling "Octans -constellation" and "Canis minor -constellation", for example, return non-astronomical things that someone could make an article on. -- Tom.Reding (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2012 (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:Winneba[edit]

The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Central Region (Ghana). Timrollpickering (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Winneba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak mergetoCategory:Central Region (Ghana), unless the category can be further populated. It does seem unlikely that there is sufficient content to justify an eponymous category for a town of less than 50,000 people; on the other hand, Winneba is the 32nd-largest settlement in Ghana. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge WP:SMALLCAT doesn't bother to define how small is too small so that leaves it up to me: 5 articles is my standard. This only has 3. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2012 (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.

Featured pictures by country[edit]

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Featured pictures of Foo. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Australian featured pictures‎
• Category:Indian featured pictures‎
• Category:Indonesian featured pictures‎

Nominator's rationale: The current titles are incorrect as they reference nationality rather than country. Three options come to mind: Featured pictures of Foo, to mirror Category:Images of Australia and similar; Foo featured pictures; and Foo-related featured pictures. I have no preference at this time. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to Featured pictures of Foo per WP-wide convention, giving Category:Featured pictures‎ of Australia, Category:Featured pictures‎ of India and Category:Featured pictures‎ of Indonesia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:21, 14 March 2012 (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:Ghana eye care[edit]

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Eye care in Ghana. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ghana eye care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. It contains four articles. I have put List of eye care facilities in Ghana up for deletion and two are up for merging into Optometry in Ghana although that does not have a huge bearing on deleting the category since they can easily be upmerged. Also, it does not form part of an established categorisation scheme. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• RenametoCategory:Eye care in Ghana following lead article. I have added a few more articles from Template:Ghana eye care. Even though there are no other country categories in eye care, it has potential. – Fayenatic L (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Rename to match lead article. Now has 5 or more valid articles, my standard for keeping a cat from being too small. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2012 (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:Northern America WikiProjects[edit]

The result of the discussion was: Delete/Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Northern America WikiProjects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Upmerge Category:Northern America WikiProjects memberstoCategory:WikiProject North America participants

Nominator's rationale: These categories form unnecessary intermediate layers between Category:Regional WikiProjects and Category:Regional WikiProjects members and categories of WikiProject Foo and WikiProject Foo members, respectively, for the U.S., Canada and Greenland. Upmerging is not required, except for the members subcategory, as all subcategories already appear in the appropriate top-level parents. From an organizational standpoint, nothing is gained by splitting lightly populated North American project categories between Northern America and Middle America. See the discussion for the recently deleted Cat:Afro-Eurasia WikiProjects. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:24, 14 March 2012 (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:Pre-Contact Hawaiian royalty[edit]

The result of the discussion was: RenametoCategory:Ancient Hawaiian royalty - jc37 01:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pre-Contact Hawaiian royaltytoCategory:Pre-contact Hawaiian royalty

Nominator's rationale: Caps. Alternately delete as overcategorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• UpmergetoCategory:Royal Family of Hawaii. The concept of "pre-contact" is appallingly biased towards a European-colonist worldview. We don't categorise European royalty by whether they pre-dated contact with the peoples of the pacific, so why should we categorise a pacific monarchy by whether it had met a European on a ship? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Opppose The latter category is used for figures with actual proof of existence. Most of the figures in the pre-contact categories are legendary or based on oral tradition.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So the oral traditions of Pacific people count less than the problematic documents of European history? How very neutral and free from euro-centrism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Depends Some of these are clearly historical figures that pre-dated European contact. Like many cultures that claim royalty descending from Gods, the further you go back, the more mythical they become. For example, Wākea created the stars and moon, something that is rarely attributed to Queen Elizabeth II. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Legendary royalty of Hawaii, based on KAVEBEAR (talk · contribs)'s comment. Those known to exist can go in Royal Family of Hawaii. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate Rename Legendary implies that all of these were ahistorical which is too sweeping and the existing name is too Euro-centric. Category:Hawaiian royalty based on oral traditions would be more neutral and accurately describe all the articles in the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note: I notified WP:HAWAII. Let's leave this open for a little longer to see if anyone shows. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• UpmergetoCategory:Royal Family of the Kingdom of Hawaii per BHG. No reason to doubt the existiance of somebody just because rumours of his or her achievements were greatly exaggerated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Even if that same royal family member shows up in other Polynesian cultures in different variations?RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• UpmergetoCategory:Royal Family of Hawaii. It strikes me as Euro-centric to make such a big deal about "contact".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• RenameasCategory:Ancient Hawaiian royalty following article Ancient Hawaii, i.e. the period of Hawaiian human history preceding the unification of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi by Kamehameha the Great in 1810. I am opposing upmerge because the target Category:Royal Family of Hawaii is defined as relating to the post-1810 period, and is a sub-cat of Category:People of the Kingdom of Hawaii. I recommend creating a new Category:Hawaiian royalty covering the nominated category and Category:Royal Family of Hawaii as a sub-cat of Category:Oceanian royalty. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I agree.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My preference remains for a merger to Category:Royal Family of Hawaii, but I would support a renaming to Category:Ancient Hawaiian royalty as a second preference. There seems to be a consensus against retaining the current category under its present title, and a move to a more neutral name seems to be the solution which most editors can support ... so I'll go along with it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
      • If the rename goes ahead, then I think Category:Royal Family of Hawaii should be nominated for renaming to include "Kingdom of Hawaii", so that its name matches its stated purpose, e.g. "Kingdom of Hawaii royalty" or "Royal family of the Kingdom of Hawaii". – Fayenatic L (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point - modified my !vote above to clarify that - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um, but your !vote was for upmerge, in which case the "Kingdom of Hawaii" name would not be appropriate since (as I understand it) that applies to the united nation from 1810 onwards. – Fayenatic L (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I still think just upmerging is the best couse. However I can live with the rename that changes the rules so they are built on Hawaiian and not British events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Second Choice Even though "Ancient Hawaiian royalty" seems a little vague to me, since it's the rename getting the most traction I favor that over the current name. (My suggested rename was too long anyway.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2012 (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:West Indian Nobel laureates[edit]

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:West Indian Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Unnecessary level of categorization within Category:Nobel laureates by nationality. That category isn't large enough to warrant by-continent splitting. Pichpich (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Nobel laureates by nationality. The nom is correct that this is overcategorisation, but upmerger is a better solution because it will ensure that the subcats are correctly parented. (if they are correctly parented, then merger does no harm). ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and the related unnecessary ones - this is just one of several unnecessary and underpopulated categories in the Category:Nobel laureates by nationality. It is more relevant to categorise these people by the subject for which they receive their prize and in the case of scientists the institution they did their work at. The rest of it is really coincidental. If at some time in the future, Nobel laureates are created in any of these nationalities we can easily recreate the categories:

Green Giant (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• UpmergetoCategory:Nobel laureates by nationality per BrownHairedGirl. I agree with Green Giant's reasoning that the the entire tree should be deleted, but that will require a separate nomination involving all of the nationality subcategories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge Would also favor future nomination to delete tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2012 (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:Newspapers by language of India[edit]

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. This appears to be part of a wider structure of Category:Categories by language of India, and it may be better to discuss all of the sub-cats of Category:Categories by language of India together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newspapers by language of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Just because something is written in a language that comes from India does not mean that it is Indian media. (e.g. Tamil-language media from Sri Lanka.) Why would we categorize like this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the whole tree needs checking. As a SWAG, I'd guess that not all the categorants in Category:Bengali-language newspapers are Category:Newspapers published in Bangladesh, its parent; but some may be, in which event they aren't newspapers of India. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and review as part of Category:Categories by language of India and Category:Newspapers published in India. Any that have non-India members should be split like the Urdu one, Category:Urdu-language newspapers published in India (its other parent Category:Urdu-language newspapers is not in the nominated category). If Keep is not approved, then rather than deleting the outcome should be upmerge to parent Category:Newspapers by language as they are not all members of it at present. – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is "of India" applying to Newspapers or language? I assume this is a breakdown of Indian Newspapers by Language, not Newspapers anywhere that are in a language used in India. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. I was thinking it should apply to Newspapers. At the moment, apart from the Urdu category which has been split by country, it is being applied to Languages. Perhaps it should be re-listed along with Category:Categories by language of India and all its sub-cats. WP:SUBCAT does allow sub-categorisation that it is mostly right, When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also, but it may be worth a discussion on whether this is taking it too far. – Fayenatic L (talk) 08:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fayenatic L.Shyamsunder (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and consider deleting other parts of the Category:Categories by language of India. What is a "language of India"? Bengali is more closelyu related to English than it is to Tamil. The grouping of these two languages into an over-arching category is just not justfied by any good linguistic logic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This seems to be part of a larger categorisation scheme set up by User:Shyamsunder: Category:Categories by language of India, and works its way down through Category:Indian media by language to this one. This has become a sort of parallel tree. There could be a decent arguement to suggest that the whole tree be merged to not separate the subcats by (presumed) India language(s). - jc37 00:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and UpmergetoCategory:Newspapers by language, and (as appropriate) Category:Newspapers published in India (per FL and others above). Might as well start here. - jc37 00:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't think it's fair to consideration of the head categories to snip out one of their significant members without discussing the whole tree. Better to relist to discuss whether the "parallel tree" (partly sub-cats rather than parallel) is justifiable by WP:SUBCAT. – Fayenatic L (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2012 (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:People who did not finish High school[edit]

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who did not finish High school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic per WP:CAT, not useful per WP:CLN doesn't fit within the categorisation schemes listed on WP:COP -in short Cruft Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept, the spelling should be corrected: The term "high school" is not a proper noun and the "h" should be lowercase. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Vincelord actually meant a high school called "High school" in which case he could add nearly every BLP on the encyclopaedia.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I created the category in question, and i feel it should remain for many reasons, First droping out of school is a major point in a persons life that Wikipedia users who are intereseted in the people listed in the category might weant to know about. Second, there are categories for what college a person went to, so why not a separate category for people who did not finish school, isn't that also noteworthy. Finally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia inteneded to educate people i feel it is a category that should remain, especially when you look at all the notable people who didn't finish school.Vincelord (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't forget to add Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad, and Queen Elizabeth II; all of whom were pretty successful but didn't get a HS diploma. ;-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion, per reasons given by the nominator. Also, the reasons a notable person may have not finished high school are so varied, it is not meaningful to group them together in such a catagory, imo.--Racerx11 (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdly people like Ozzy Osbourne were added [1] - Ozzy went to secondary school (if we take the two to be comparable) but there was no requirement to finish ever year available to you in a UK Schools, and no Graduation if you complete every year available to you. Ozzy legitimately finished Secondary School at 15 and embarked on a vocational placement; Also added was Adolf Hitler who completed secondary school at 16 and applied unsuccessfully to gain a higher education from the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not particularly defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. In many countries, there are several possible finishing points for secondary education. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very similar (yet even more broad) than Category:High school dropouts, which has been repeatedly deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non-defining and too common. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a presentist, US-specific category. We do not categorize by what people did not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain this category. I agree with points made above that readers should be able to see a list of notable persons that did not complete high school. Although there should be criteria at the top of the category so people like Ozzy are not included.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Please see this previous CfD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_29#Category:Dropouts, which resulted in the list page which is now up for AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dropouts. - jc37 22:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I can understand all the points made for deletion, But I don't think it should be a democratic one. I think it should be a practical one. It should left as a category as opposed to a list. Readers should be able to see who has succeeded without completing high school, and have that list as a category so they can compare. Employers may ask for this information, so there is no reason a reader can't query it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In what historical context though? My grandfather didn't finish high school because he was drafted into what is now called WWI and it didn't hold him back at all. In contrast, this would be much more likely to influence career prospects today. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In addition to the points above, also likely to be a proxy for race and class in an American historical context. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2012 (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 Terminology by author[edit]

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:Terminology of Jacques Lacan

Propose upmerging Category:Terminology of Sigmund Freud

Propose upmerging Category:Terminology of Félix Guattari

Propose upmerging Category:Terminology of Gilles Deleuze

Nominator's rationale: Per this Carl Jung nomination and this one on Jacques Derrida and the parent category, we have decided against categorization of terms by the authors that used them (whether or not they invented them). These should be upmerged and in some cases purged from some of their categories. The Deleuze and Guattari categories were created after the decision to delete the Jung category, and after a community decision to require User:Stefanomione to stop creating categories of a type deemed unworkable by the CfD community. It seems to me that he does not understand the purpose of this action.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to author categories, which are too small to support themselves otherwise. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the first such case I've seen since his ANI. His other work has been fine, from what I've seen. I guess we'd need to see another, more clear-cut case before considering a request for a block. Also, Mike, did you not mean to add the parent Category:Terminology by author to this nom? It was left untouched by the closing admin last time, because "The problem with deleting Category:Terminology by author is, what happens to the included categories?" But now that all the subcats are being proposed for deletion (including the ones added by Stefanomione after the first 2 CfDs) then the whole structure can go, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not suggesting a block, more of a statement that this is exactly the kind of thing he should stop doing right now. As for the parent, I did not feel it was necessary to renominate it, since the deletion of these categories will leave it ready for deletion as per the last nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm really perplexed by Stefanomione's creation of the last two despite the ANI discussion and pretty clear agreement at CfD that such categories were not welcome. Pichpich (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2012 (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:Black blogs[edit]

The result of the discussion was: RenametoCategory:African American blogs. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black blogs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: What is this? It was previously (erroneously) subcategorized under Category:American bloggers...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the relevant CfD page. I'm the creator, but as the short discussion on the page indicates, there was apparently once a precedent to create this sub-category and include it in larger categories. If that precedent is gone, I don't see why it shouldn't be deleted. Leo 08:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• RenametoCategory:African American blogs to match Category:African-American television and Category:African American magazines. (Inclusion criteria should be on content/target audience and not include, for instance, Neil deGrasse Tyson's astronomy blog.) RevelationDirect (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2012 (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:People from Atlanta[edit]

The result of the discussion was: merge, as requested by creator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from AtlantatoCategory:Wikipedians in Atlanta, Georgia

Nominator's rationale: Looks like a mistake for Category:People from Atlanta, Georgia, but only page is a user page. LeSnail (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge/delete/redirect This is obvious. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It was a mistake Apologies. The category should be Category:People from Atlanta, Georgia. Magic.towers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:12, 14 March 2012 (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:Television series set in the ####[edit]

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to rename (in this nomination) or to delete (per the other nomination).--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Television series set in the ####toCategory:Television set in the ####

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I know the redlinks from my use of non-existent categories above may make this look a bit strange, but they are in reference to the many period television series categories listed at Category:Period television series, specifically the ones with decade ranges, currently Category:Television series set in the 1900s up through Category:Television series set in the 1980s, with Category:Television shows set in the 2010s breaking the existing naming convention. (And what about the 1990's? Oh, well...) Changing these to "Television" instead of "Television series" would allow for individual episodes (time travel shows, anthology series, TV specials, TV movies, etc.), essentially any Television that is not the entire series, but can and should be included. I've noted that some individual episodes are already listed in some of these categories, so this subtle renaming would serve to clarify what appears to be an existing trend. 4.254.80.25 (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's an intriguing idea, and several suitable individual episodes come to mind – most of them, however, are redirects to season articles. However, if we do start categorizing individual episodes and other television by period of setting, should they be grouped together with television series or within a separate category tree? One option would be to create Category:Television set in the ####s as a parent category, rather than a replacement, of Category:Television series set in the ####s; then, series articles would be subcategorized while episodes could be placed in the higher-level 'Television set in...' category. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This too easily sets up WP:OR situations. Shows broadcast in the 60s may appear to be "set" in the 60s, but that doesn't mean they are. And often shows are set to be "modern", or "current" to the viewing audience. (Consider most sitcoms and dramas, especially the so called "procedurals".) So quite often, these will be mostly or nearly identical to "produced in ####". Plus, do flashbacks count? And how about The Wonder Years? Is it "set" in the time of the narrator? How I Met Your Mother, for another one. And what about time travelling ones? Heroes (TV series) had episodes set in several time periods, even in the same episode. (See also Narrative_mode#Narrative_tense.) If wanted/needed. these should be handled by era/by period, and not by numerical year. - jc37 23:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What The?! - Delete? Bringing up the idea has made someone suggest the categories not be somehow renamed, modified, or expanded or reduced, but wiped out? (How else am I to interpret "Delete"?) Now where did I leave that MIB neuralyzer? OK, enough panicking. Sure, there may be some problems with what gets put in those categories, and maybe some more rules need to be established, but I was glad to see those categories established since movies have enjoyed classification by date (down to the year) and decade specification seems appropriate but not overkill for TV with lots of room for growth. But that growth could (and to an extent already has) include individual episodes, be they about time travel, anthology series episodes that have broad date ranges, the occasional flashback episode, or a TV special that's not considered a TV movie (perhaps best classified as a film). Since I proposed the above renaming, I've come to reconsider. Dropping "series" from the categories might somehow be a deterrent from further series classification, and make series get all jumbled with non-series, but not doing so would be blatantly inaccurate for television that isn't a series (They should be able to go somewhere, right?) So maybe Category:Television set in the #### should be for where Category:Television series set in the #### are contained, but then that creates a disconnect by placing them another level further down from Category:Period television series, which is itself inaccurately named if it is to contain non-series television. CAN O' WORMS! Um...help?! 4.254.84.75 (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I had in mind a structure such as:

  Category:Period television

  Category:Television set in the ####s

  Category:Television series set in the ####s

  Category:Period television series

  Category:Television series set in the ####s

  The question remains, of course, whether we really want to do this and, if so, how. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: In your proposed hierarchy, Television should probably be Television shows, per previous consensus at the WikiProject and elsewhere. - jc37 22:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There are few topics which I think should be split by decade, much less by year. And I believe all of those are real-life events, not elements of fiction. When we start to look for such specificity in fiction as we do for real-life events, we usually find that WP:V slips away like sand through our fingers. It does exist, in some cases, but it's hardly common, and in this case, sets up categories that due to our WP:V/WP:OR policies, can never be "complete". And so it invites WP:OR from enthusiastic editors wanting to try to "complete" such categories. Because of this, and many other issues which need references and explanatory text, this is data that's just better handled by a list, if at all. - jc37 22:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  On further reflection, I am in agreement with you. Categorization of this type – of a work of fiction by an element of its fictional plot and in context of a real-world classification scheme – is always problematic. In addition to the problem of original research, it fails to distinguish between a decade in the real world and a decade in a fictional universe. The decade of the 2010s in one fictional universe is not directly comparable to the same decade in another fictional universe. The author of a work of fiction has the power to define the times however they wish, unconstrained even by normal flow of time (e.g. time travel, alternate timelines). The situation is complicated further when one takes into account when a work of fiction was created: a vision of the 2010s in a work of fiction produced in the 1910s is likely to be much different than a vision of the same decade in a work of fiction produced in the 2000s. Lists of television series by period of setting may be workable, but even they will need a good, properly sourced start and vigilant maintenance to identify and remove good-faith original additions. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A larger discussion about whether this category tree should exist at all is occurring at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 18#Category:Works by decade of setting. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2012 (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:Trojan objects[edit]

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Trojans (astronomy). Timrollpickering (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Trojan objectstoCategory:Trojan objects (astronomy)orCategory:Trojans (astronomy)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The main article about these objects is Trojan (astronomy). We should rename to either of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Trojan objects (astronomy)or‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Trojans (astronomy) to make it clear what this category is for. It is not for objects related to any of the other stuff called "Trojan". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Trojans (astronomy) to match the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – to what other "trojan objects" does the nominator refer? There is no ambiguity needing resolution. These are for astronomical bodies that are trojan objects, not with topics regarding "trojan (astronomy)". Regards, RJH (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archaeological objects from Troy, mentioned below. University of Southern California memorabilia. Objects which are "Trojan Horse"-like in their intent. Something to do with condoms. Use your imagination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trojan condoms licenses it's names to sex toys which are advertised on late-night TV. That was my first thought. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unless there's some other kind of Trojan objects, this is completely unneeded. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, objects from Troy, perhaps?</snark> Axem Titanium (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• RenametoCategory:Trojans (astronomy), which would be a set category for Trojan objects (not the plural 'Trojans') and not a topic category as suggested in RJH's comment, per the title of the main article. I think that the current title is ambiguous; for instance, my first thought upon seeing this section heading was of archaeological objects from Troy (see Troy#Archaeological Troy). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• RenametoCategory:Trojans (astronomy). Agree entirely with Black Falcon; Trojan is a dab page and so 'Trojan objects' is ambiguous (and the main use is Troy-related, unless one is an astronomer). Oculi (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• REnametoCategory:Trojans (astronomy). The Trojan horse was not astronomical but would belong in the category as currently named. "Trojans" are also a variety of computer virus and may for all I know involve objects. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To nitpick, the Trojan horse was a Greek object. But yes, I would go along with the rename. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• RenametoCategory:Trojans (astronomy) to correspond to lead article. "Objects" works fine for the head cat Category:Co-orbital objects, but is ambiguous for Trojan objects until someone checks the category in its hierarchical context. (Note: Category:Earth Trojans was renamed last year to Category:Earth trojan asteroids to be similarly disambiguous, even though this left it inconsistent with its sibling cats, and this is fine; it's better to be clear than consistent.) – Fayenatic L (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Earth Trojans was renamed to Category:Earth trojan asteroids just a few hours prior to your comment. You may have just misread the year on the log page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 19 March 2012 (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.

Astronomy unclassified categories[edit]

The result of the discussion was: Keep all. Categories have been redefined to clearly indicate that they are for scientifically unclassified objects. (Note that Category:Unclassified star clusters is currently empty and thus C1 eligible, though.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging Category:Unclassified star clusterstoCategory:Star clusters

Propose upmerging Category:Unclassified galaxiestoCategory:Galaxies

Propose upmerging Category:Unclassified starstoCategory:Stars

Propose upmerging Category:Unclassified astronomical objectstoCategory:Astronomical objects

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. These categories are not for astronomical objects that are inherently "unclassifiable", they are just categories containing articles that haven't yet been properly categorized in Wikipedia yet. Thus, their contents can just be upmerged to the appropriate parent to await categorization. Another option would be to convert them into hidden categories used solely for administration/editing of WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose these are categories that should be for objects that have not been scientifically classified as yet, not for objects that on Wikipedia lack categorization. We can clean up the categories to make it function that way. 70.49.126.147 (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. These are for objects that are Unclassified because they have not been studied in enough detail. -- Kheider (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone actually read the category definitions? ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Unclassified star clusters explicitly states: "Please help categorize any stars listed here." Category:Unclassified stars explicitly states: "Please help categorize any stars listed here." Category:Unclassified galaxies explicitly states: ""Please help categorize any galaxies listed here." And has anyone looked at the stars and galaxies included in these articles? There is nothing in the articles that states that these are inherently "unclassifiable" at this time. On the contrary, many of the them are already classified in other relevant star or galaxy categories! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The description can be corrected, as I stated in my oppose opinion. "unclassified" is a valid science-based categorization. 70.24.245.141 (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you are committing to fixing the definitions and cleaning out the categories? None of the articles I have looked at in any of the articles have said anything about being "unclassified". If these categories were meant to be what you say they can be (and I don't think that they ever were) it would essentially be populated by a large amount of WP:OR. (It's also confusing as to whether you are the same user who posted above, since the IPs are different.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • My IP rollsover whenever it rains (and keeps rolling over while raining)... (I suspect my ISP has a faulty circuit somewhere exposed to the elements) ; Yes, I am willing to check the standard databases (SIMBAD, NED) to see if the articles currently occupying these categories have been classified or not, and then correcting the ones that have been classified. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – because this encourages a lack of category diffusion. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diffusion is not a goal unto itself in categories. See WP:OC#MISC. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as these are now being used as scientifically relevant categories, rather than for housekeeping. Diffusion is a bonus. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Oppose per Kheider and others. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Don't mind cleaning out the cats either...Benkenobi18 (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- As a matter of principle, we do not like "other" categories. They should be in the parent until they can be classified. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge Content categories and maintenance categories should be clearly separated. Readers typically don't see the hatnote explaining the purpose of the category and it's natural for them to incorrectly assume that an unclassified star is a star that science has failed to classify instead of a star that Wikipedia has yet to classify properly. Besides, it's not even clear that the category is being used properly since a large chunk of stars in Category:Unclassified stars are also in other star categories. Pichpich (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think the gist of these categories is not that WP hasn't classified them, but that science hasn't. Now, the problem arises when scientists disagree, say, on whether "Foo" is or is not a "Bar" - is Foo categorized or not? But methinks that subtle finery seems handled in more mundane categorization schemes we have: was it suicide or murder? Is Jimmy Hoffa dead or alive? etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delay consideration so 70... can clean up descriptions and contents. If this is an external, definable list that have been officially deisgnated as "unclassified", that's different than a Wikipedia-based category. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2012 (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.