Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 19

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< November 18 November 20 >

November 19

edit

Category:International Federation of Catholic Universities

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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a university is (currently) a member of a federation is not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic of the university. This sort of thing would be more appropriate as a list in the article about the federation (with dates etc) than in a category (if it is necessary at all in WP as in most/all cases we can link to an official website containing a list). Note: It would be much better to create any such list from a RS (e.g. the federation's website) than from the current content of this category; so it is not necessary to listify this category. For info: A previous CFD for such a category is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_16#Category:1994_Group. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_2#Category:Universities_and_colleges_by_association. DexDor (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2013 (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:Collapsed buildings

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.
The result of the discussion was: split to Category:Collapsed buildings and Category:Building collapses. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of the articles in this category seem to discuss the collapse as their major aspect, the building not being notable otherwise. The category name should reflect this focus. Paul_012 (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2013 (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:Bulgarian people by ethnographic region

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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. There was agreement that the current name does not convey the category's scope (Bulgars outside Bulgaria), but no agreement on what other name would be clearer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS The CFD tag on the category had been removed on 28 December, while the discussion was still open :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a very unusual and awkward phrasing that is unique to the category Category:People by region. Standard category names are on the lines of Category:People by region in Denmark and Category:People by region in Namibia. Liz Read! Talk! 20:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename but NOT as nom -- The nom will not do, because most of the content is about Bulgars outside Bulgaria. I suspect that this is NOT a typical expatriate category, which would normally become Fooian people of Bulgarian descent, because they may well be people whose ancestors never were in Bulgaria. How about Category:Bulgarian people by country with a head note explaining it that it is for Bulgarian people outside Bulgaria. Many European ethnicities sorted themselves out by migrating to an ethnic homeland at the end of WWII. The Greeks and Turks did so in the early 1920s, but many of the other ethnic groups of the Ottoman Empire did little migration and remain in successor countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Bulgarian people by region. I would point out we need to use "Bulgarian". Bulgar describes a different historic ethnic group, whose connection to modern Bulgarians is a major issue of debate in certain circles in both Bulgaria and Macedonia, with views of what the boundaries of Bulgaria should be often closely connected to views on the connection of the modern Bulgarians to the Bulgars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move articles to Category:Bulgarian minorities, if not already there. gidonb (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2013 (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:Star Trek races

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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think we need to distinguish between sentient and non-sentient life forms in a fictional franchise. Plus, who is to say that tribbles aren't sentient? Per our lovely wikipedia article, sentience is the ability to feel. Are dogs sentient? One category suffices here for now... Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2013 (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 Guyanese people

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.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Afro-Guyanese people. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is the only one named in this way in the parent category of Category:People of African descent. All similar categories have the style of "X people of Y descent" (such as Category:Peruvian people of African descent or Category:French people of African descent). Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about renaming it "Category:Afro-Guyanese people"? Djodjo666 (talk) 01:18, November 20, 2013 (UTC)
Its parent category is named Category:Afro-Guyanese and it attempts to cover the ethnic group and related topics. The main article is called Afro-Guyanese. Any particular reason not to merge this category to its parent? Dimadick (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Afro-Guyanese should not contain articles about people. If you wanted to match to the parent article, it would be a subcategory named Category:Afro-Guyanese people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2013 (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:Kid's clothing and accessories retailers

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.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Children's clothing retailers. There were two discussions here. One was whether or not to keep this. Clearly there was no consensus for deletion. However this is a small category at present and renaming could help populate the category, so there is potential for growth. While not specifically mentioned in the discussion, this name matches the current naming in the rest of the tree. It fixes the use of kids and eliminates the inclusion of accessories which several editors appear opposed to. I have no objection to a new deletion (or renaming) discussion on the condition that before the deletion nomination, someone tries to populate the category so that we can see if this can be populated. If it can not, the OC#SMALL guidelines would appear to apply. If it can be populated then the discussion on a need to split in this manner could be held. So I fully expect this to come back here for some reason, and this close does not discourage anyone from doing so and is better then a no consensus which would leave the original problem unaddressed after 2 months. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inappropriately informal language. (Trying again after messing up first nom) PamD 08:53, 19 November 2013 (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:FGM victims

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.
The result of the discussion was: NO CONSENSUS. There is consensus that retaining the nominated categories is unsuitable, but no clear decision as to where there should be merged to before deletion. So it seems that the nominated categories are not yet able to be deleted. I think if an agreement to rename them can be reached elsewhere, there should be no problem with a bold move and then a speedy deletion. -Splash - tk 19:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a tricky one. To some, FGM is a tradition and they are proud of having been cut. To others, especially in western countries, it is an illegal practice. While many forms of FGM are abhorrent, it is still legal in some places where practiced, and some types practiced involve a small nick in the genetalia which is no worse than a male circumcision. Finally whAt is most notable about those present in the category now is they have pursued activism against the practice. If we simply started categorizing every woman who admitted to have undergone some form of this practice we would likely put half of Kenyan women into this box. We don't categorize male circumcisions, and while most forms of FGM aren't equivalent to make circumcision the analogy still holds - its a traditional practice that is more and more condemned, certainly worthy of noting in the article but not defining of the people who underwent it - their activism on the issue if they went that route is much more defining. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
wow, I think that's basically Godwin's law in action. In any case the two aren't comparable - there is not significant debate amongst scholars as to the use of the term genocide, but there is a counter-current that believes the word mutilation is too judgmental. In any case this nomination isn't about the term mutilation, as the category should follow the article, so that debate can be held elsewhere - this is more about whether we want to categorize as 'victims' people who are subject to a practice which is often legal and which some - not all - are proud of and consider an important part of their culture. I am not attempting to defend this practice which in its more extreme forms is really horrible, but there are also milder symbolic forms but which are still called FGM, and women subject to such milder forms would still qualify as 'victims' according to the inclusion criteria. To see how the current title is problematic, you could rename this category as 'Women who were circumcised' which would basically capture the same contents, but since we wouldn't have an equivalent male category I think this one should be merged back to the activists cat.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with Jerry. "Mutilation" is both factually correct and the most common term used for these procedures. It is even the term used by the World Health Organization. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename of activists / neutral on merge of victims The parent article is female genital mutilation and the category title should match it. I applaud User:Herostratus for pointing out how ludicrous the suggestion is that using the title of the article to describe these individuals is an example of WP:BIAS. We have an excellent model in Category:Pro-choice activists and Category:Pro-life activists, where the term used by the proponents of each side in the battle are allowed to define themselves. Sure, that can be interpreted to mean that pro-choice activists are anti-life and that pro-life activists are anti-choice, but c'est la vie (or c'est la choice, as the case may be). I'm not sure if there are activists in favor of female genital mutilation or what exactly they call themselves, but we can deal with that when there is a potential category to deal with. If anyone here truly believes that the word "mutilation" is too darn judgmental then the best course of action is to get the title of the article changed, not to impose the political correctness in CfD world by having a mismatch between the titles of the category and the parent article. The victims category is too small at this point and its not clear that either of the two people are defined by being victims of female genital mutilation, but the suggestion that the title "Women who were circumcised" would be appropriate here is offensive to these individuals and their experiences, nor is the fact that we don't track men who have been circumcised relevant to this discussion. Alansohn (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is ludicrous is the idea that the word "mutilation" is not an example of bias. It is biased as the name of the article and it's biased in the name of the categories. The potential to change the article name is probably nil but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed elsewhere if we can. Dismissing that concern about bias as "political correctness" is extremely simplistic and non-critical. "Female circumcision" is a neutral term, as is "female genital cutting". Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry, categories follow articles, I'm sure you know this, so if you think consensus won't be found to rename the article, it is doing an end-run to rename the associated categories. In any case, I really would suggest we don't press this issue further here; please concentrate on the scope of the nomination, as any rename away from FGM would likely require a rename of the article which is out of scope.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not Holy Writ that every category has to match every article, although there is certainly consensus that that usually be the case. But if we have the chance to address bias here we should, even if another part of the project can't or won't. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many people here at CfD believe that categories and the category system is what Wikipedia is all about. It turns out that the encyclopedia is really about articles, while categories are an ancillary, convenient and ill-used system to navigate across these articles. Rather than imposing names in CfD world onto the encyclopedia as a whole, we ought to display a tremendous degree of fealty to the standards, practices and consensus built in article space and respect the fact that article titles have been developed by a far broader group of people than have ever participated at CfD. Sure, it ain't Holy Writ, but the fact that we agree that the "potential to change the article name is probably nil" ought to demonstrate that we should respect the title of female genital mutilation rather than try to find some backhanded way to needlessly create greater confusion in a little Wikipedia backwater by deliberately renaming a category to contradict the title of the associated article. Alansohn (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Alan here. CFD is a small group of people, so we should, unless there are very good reasons to do so, defer to decisions made about such matters in article space.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well of course, Alansohn, no one other than you is suggesting that the goal here is to "impose" anything on anyone, so I'll discount that portion of your screed. The question I have raised is whether or not the word "mutilation" is an example of bias. I get that you either don't think it is or you don't care whether it is because of the article name, and that's fine, but there's no reason to be all pissy about a difference of opinion. Based on reading your comments here and in other CFDs over the last few days and weeks it appears that you have a lot of anger over the way the CFD process works. Accusations of "political correctness", calling the dedicated editors who choose to spend their time here as residing in "a little Wikipedia backwater", and you had a choice blast for someone about baseball in Latin America the other day. If the process here is so upsetting for you then maybe you should take a break from it, try to get a little distance and perspective, and not jump down the throats of editors whose concerns are at least as valid as yours. Again, the unwillingness of one set of editors to consider that the word "mutilation" might be biased does not change the obligation that another group of editors has to strive to achieve a neutral point of view. Finally, if you really think that the average reader is going to be at all confused by finding an article on female genital "mutilation" in a category named female genital "cutting", well, let's just say that speaks volumes about your opinion of your fellow human beings. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jerry, its well past time to stop your "pissy" fit. Where I've disagreed with issues here at CfD, I've made my case here at CfD; I've won some and I've lost some, but I've made the case here, where it belongs. If you truly believe that the term and article title "female genital mutilation" is an offensive example of WP:BIAS, then go to that article's talk page, make the case that the term is inappropriate and convince the community that the term must be changed to fit your demands. Refusing to acknowledge the global consensus on the article title and fighting a battle that you have acknowledged you can't win by trying to rename a category seems to be a rather poor example of working to build consensus in this community. Alansohn (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hahaha, it's funny that you're pretending that a suggestion here that addresses possible bias is some global attack on something, or something. Hilarious how you couch a suggestion as a "demand". Guess it's easier to react like you do than to address the actual issue. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some reason why you're trying to paint this as some left-wing vs right-wing battle? No one else is dragging that nonsense into the discussion so I have to wonder why, when the only question is whether the word "mutilation" is indicative of bias, you feel it's necessary and appropriate to haul out nonsense like "hippy-dippy" and "far-left bigoted hate group". Are you just not capable of discourse on any other terms? Regardless, the question of whether or not a word is indicative of systemic bias is hardly addressed by pointing out how much of the system uses the word. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some reason why you believe that there is "systemic bias" given that the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the UK Parliament (among hundreds of other entities worldwide) use the term and that organizations opposed to the practice specifically oppose what they all call "female genital mutilation"? Who else is involved in this bias and what is their agenda in pushing a term that so offends you? Why are you fighting the battle here and not going to the article Female genital mutilation to make your case that the article must be moved because of some perceived bias? I've pointed to the overwhelming usage of the term per WP:COMMONNAME, I've demonstrated that international experts use the term and that the organizations themselves describe themselves as being against female genital mutilation and you just keep endlessly repeating the same claim of imagined bias without using any evidence to support it. Why should we give credence to your claims and ignore a world of evidence? Alansohn (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the word "mutilation" is indicative of bias and your appeal to authority doesn't change my mind on that subject. If you believe differently, that's certainly your prerogative and there is no need to have a tantrum about it. If you do not understand the concept of using language to shape perception than I'm certainly not going to attempt to explain it to you in this format. I am not "fighting" any "battle" here or anywhere else since I don't look upon these discussion as the sort of combat that you obviously do. Nor do I particularly care at this point. I have made my comment and you and others have responded. But feel free to call some more names, because that's helpful. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not po-tay-to vs. po-tah-to, where there might possibly be room to argue that your prerogative has equal significance. In terms of your complaint about my "appeal to authority", the folks at the United Nations and the World Health Organization (and hundreds of others) are the subject-matter experts in this field and there is rather clear consensus not only among the experts but among the activists in terms of what they call themselves and want to be called. It's you against the world and you've offered no backing for your claim. I agree that you believe that the word "mutilation" is indicative of bias. The question is why that opinion should have any weight in the absence of any evidence to support it. If the facts won't change your mind, what will? Alansohn (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
resolved formatting issues
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ok, fixed the target.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oi. Do we normally have en-dashes in category names? I hope we will create a redirect in any case, few people will type it as such.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do. And it's needed here because we are referring to activists who are against "female genital mutilation" not activists for genital mutilation who are anti-"female". But we nearly always include a redirect from the hyphenated version. I don't want to hijack this discussion, so you can delete or hide this diversion discussion if you want to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge&merge/delete victims category. We shouldn't categorize people by what modifications have been made to their bodies (circumcision, tattoos, appendix removal, ears pierced...) - it's neither a reason for notability nor a fundamental biographical characteristic (such as year of birth or gender). DexDor (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep FGM abbreviation in category name. No convincing reason has been given for renaming and in context (e.g. on an activist's article) there's no need to spell out the term in full. DexDor (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge/rename as proposed. I tend to think that we do not need a separate category for victims, and I think that the abbreviation should be spelled out in category names. I am in favor of following whatever the article is named. I can understand the view that "mutilation" can be seen as POV, but I think that's the common name and an attempt to move the article would probably not succeed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is, AFAIK, currently no article specifically about anti-FGM activism - what is "the article" that you are referring to ? If we renamed the category now and then an article was created at "Anti-FGM activism", "List of anti-FGM campaigners" or similar would you want the category renamed back to use the abbreviation to match the new article ? (It's not uncommon in WP for the name of a more specific article to abbreviate a term that a parent article writes out in full - e.g. CD player and Compact disc). DexDor (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While FGM is used in the literature by activists, it is not a commonly known abbreviation, like CD might be expected to be. Thus, no matter what ends up happening, we should spell out the abbreviation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making any assumptions in my core opinion—I'm simply following the name of the article that does exist. To answer your other speculative question (which of course requires the making of assumptions)—for categories, I'm generally in favour of following the name of the most applicable "main article". So if an article called "Anti-FGM" existed, then yes, I would likely be in favour of naming the category Category:Anti-FGM activists. Like Obi, I doubt that that would be the name of such an article, however. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, the three current members of the category can be safely described as activists; all three have founded charities that fight against FGM. Thus, a merge would not be improper.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both proposals.Pass a Method talk 14:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multi-step proposal. All of the proposals are awkwardly worded. Let's go with "Activists against [whatever we call the process]", e.g. "Activists against female genital mutilation", "Activists against female circumcision", or whatever. "Anti-female genital mutilation activists" can easily be misread as "Activists for genital mutilation who are anti-female", for example, but "Activists against female genital mutilation" is clear and simple to understand. And why would we rename the victims category to the activists category? There's no good reason to assume that those on whom this action has been performed are activists. The nominator's rationale isn't quite appropriate for a multi-nomination in which the rest of the discussion looks at what we call the process; a multi-nomination is only appropriate when all of the categories in the nomination have the same issue. Let's make it "victims/subjects/whatever of [whatever we call the process]", and if Obiwan still wants to see the concept of the category changed around, he should be free to make a new CFD of it. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
all of the contents of the current category are notable for their activism. Please read my nomination which Lays this out. We aren't renaming, we are merging the victims to the activists and then simply expanding an abbreviation for the activists category. We don't need a victims category because many women who have undergone this procedure, especially those that underwent the milder versions, do not consider themselves victims, and it would be surprising if someone became notable solely for having admitted to be a victim - if this is all it took we'd have thousands of African women who were victims. Ultimately it was the activism of women who underwent more brutal forms of FGM that led to their notability and high profile on this subject. I nominated them together to save time and group like issues, and I really didnt think expanding the abbreviation would be controversial.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'd be fine with Activists against female genital mutilation fwiw.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look I'm new here and have no idea how to comment on this correctly but I was disappointed with the title of this article. FGM is bias and loaded, it should be a more neutral term such as circumcision or operations. Everyone has their own opinions but you shouldn't force yours upon others. Keep it professional and have this be a place to inform people, not spread anti FGO propaganda. Thats all thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimmingmoon (talk • contribs) 06:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and expand per nom. In general we limit actual victims categories to cause of death categories, and in very few cases is FGM considered a cause of death.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2013 (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:Star Wars creatures

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.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Star Wars creatures and Category:Star Wars races to Category:Star Wars species. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There seems to be no clear differentiation as to what constitutes a "creature" and a "species". Indeed, the two individual "creatures" are also categorized as "species". No need for a separate category. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep just remove Bantha from creatures and sarlaac from species. I don't think we should be too picky about species when talking about fiction - it means what it says - articles about groups of living entities that are distinguishable from humans. Creatures is for individual, named creatures. Given the size of the Star Wars universe and long existing lists I see no reason to not give this category a chance.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be saying that bantha should be considered a species because we see more than one on-screen but the sarlacc isn't because only one appears on-screen. This strikes me as original research. Additionally, the sarlacc article asserts there is a correct plural form of the word, indicating that it too is a species. Regardless, maintaining these separate categories for one or two or even three articles runs afoul of WP:OC#SMALL. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ah, wookiepedia has set me straight. Sarlaac is a species as well. Hmm. Have you informed wiki project stars wars about this? They may have some other creature articles lying around, but I guess in this case sarlaac should go in both, since the article seems mostly about the creature but in the broader Star Wars universe it's indeed a species.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
we also have a Star Wars characters category, and Star Wars races. Ultimately, this makes 4, and we only need 2 - one form articles about groups of beings, and another for articles about specific beings - for example the sarlaac, even if it never spoke, was certainly a character. I think we should merge creatures to characters and merge races to species.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Races to species should certainly be done. Creatures to characters should not be, though, as that implies "named characters". - The Bushranger One ping only 11:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have added the species and races categories to this discussion since they all so closely cover the same territory and so we can resolve all three at the same time. I haven't added the characters category since there are clearly sufficient articles on individual characters for it to be in question. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Star Wars species Hmm.. It seems over at star trek, they have classified Category:Star_Trek_species and Category:Star_Trek_races separately, preferring to make a difference between sentient and non-sentient life forms. I think this is probably going too far; you could make such a distinction in lists, but not in categories (plus, how do we know the Sarlaac wasn't sentient? He lived for 50,000 years, so he had time to think a lot of thoughts. I think we can put all of these elements in Star Wars species, and then any articles about particular characters can be moved to Category:Star Wars characters - I disagree with the bushranger, I think any "creature" for which we have enough RS to create a article about should be considered a character, even if they don't speak.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just nominated the star trek categories to merge, fwiw.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2013 (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:Burial place unknown

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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an administrative category for any and all Biography articles (excluding BLPs) that don't specify where the person's body ended up. (It is not for historical figures that lack a known burial place.) Although this only has 30 articles, it has the potential to grow into the thousands. I give more lattitude to hidden categories but I don't see how this is helpful to other editors to improve articles. Or maybe this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT; you decide. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the permanently blocked creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Bigoraphy. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete hard to say this is defining of the subject. We are defined mostly by how we live, not where our bones are placed after we die.. And unknown just doesn't work here, even as an administrative category. It not-being-known where someone is buried is hardly defining, even when we know they are buried somewhere the definingness is somewhat sketchy.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't categorise people by burial place, and most articles don't even mention it even where it is known - unless they're buried in, say, Arlington, it's simply not a notable thing. Therefore, we shouldn't categorise by the lack of information we con't categorise by in the first place. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would imagine that as an administrative category this was supposed to serve as a list of biographical articles missing burial location, similarly to the way Category:Articles needing coordinates is used. Even if it wasn't originally designed as such, renaming and tightening its scope could be useful. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Such administrative categories are necessary, since they are useful for tracking down incomplete articles. This the same as Category:Year of birth uncertain, Category:Year of birth missing. (I hope it never grows into the thousands, because that would mean we are doing a particularly poor job of tracking down info.) Dimadick (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an administrative category for people whose articles just fail to mention where they are buried. It is for people for which no one knows where they were buried--the burial place is unknown to history. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The description on the category page indicates it was intended for both uses: "Persons of whom their burial place is unknown, and as a holding subcategory for persons of whom their burial place is not yet known (i.e., not yet stated in the article)." I'm seeing it as primarilly an admin cat since it is hidden so it won't show up on articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- In most cases the place of burial is a relatively trivial aspect of the end of a person's life. There is certainly a distinction between unknown = no surviving evidence, and missing = data could be recorded in article but is not. Even then, further research may indicate a place of death, and in most cases burial will have been nearby. Dates of birth and death are very significant, but the place is rather less so. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at least the aspect of categorizing people whose burial places are unknown to history. I would be OK with renaming to Category:Burial place missing if it is wanted as an admin category for those articles that just haven't had burial place added yet, but I'm not strongly in favor of necessarily renaming/limiting the scope in this way. I'd be happier with a straight delete. This is a Pastorwayne category, and his category contributions have been eligible for deletion on sight for several years now; this one doesn't seem to me to have much merit. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Burial place missing. I rarely want to keep a Pastorwayne category, but I think that this one has merit as a maintenance category, provided that is scope is broadened. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Place-of-burial isn't (IMO) an essential piece of information in a biographical article (unlike year-of-birth). E.g. for someone who is notable as a sportsperson in their 20s it doesn't matter that much where they were buried many decades later. If this is kept then should we have categories for "alma mater unknown", "ethnicity unknown", "religion unknown", "descent unknown", "sexuality unknown" etc... ? If kept then rename per BHG. DexDor (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points. It is one of those things which is nice to have in an article, but maybe it is not essential. However, there is a good reason to include this relatively minor factoid, because it allows people to visit the grave. In other words, it's a point of metadata which is actively used by readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is very different from a birth or death year category. 71.9.51.70 (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the vast majority of cases the place of burial has not been seen as defining to the dead. We have a huge number of articles that cover the life of the subject fairly well, where the place of burial is known but not in the article because it was just not seen as related to the subjects life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2013 (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:Burials in catacombs

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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Wizardman 05:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OC#OVERLAPPING: this category currently groups only Roman Catholic Popes who are already better categorized (perhaps overcategorized) in Category:Burial places of popes. I don't think this category is worth populating differently as "catacombs" can be a variety of underground crypts raising WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE issue and the category doesn't really fit into Category:Burials by place tree because it more of a type of burial than a specific place. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified creator (he/she is blocked as a sockpuppet but perhaps we'll get a reply under a different user) and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Bigoraphy. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2013 (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:Hartford Bicentennials players

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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. per WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2013 (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:Brian Tyler songs

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.
The result of the discussion was: rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The only song in this category was written by Brian Tyler, not performed by him. Tassedethe (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Previous speedy nomination
  • Rename - although I don't see that the modifier is needed as no one is likely to think the actor or the race car driver wrote this. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. It is correct that BT wrote the song, rather than performed it, so xxx songs is inappropriate, plus it correct that the the category should match the article name space - so the modifier is correct, too. --Richhoncho (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename We keep the modifier in all cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2013 (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:Barnstars

    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.
    The result of the discussion was: speedy rename C2C. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be clear that this is about Wikipedia:Barnstars, not Barnstars. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2013 (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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_19&oldid=1141927906"