The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I don't believe that Christian churchs in the US are categorized according to church in this way, although membership in a given denomination may be designated. In any case, they aren't called "Church of God in Christ Christians" vs. "Nazarene Christians", etc. I'm not sure what needs to be done with this category, but it isn't correct. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Church of God in Christ is the Christian denomination or church. Christians are categorized according to individual denominations/churches (i.e., Lutherans, Chalcedonian Christians, Oriental Orthodox Christians, etc.). This category categorizes people who are/were members of this Christian denomination. Another way to word it would be "people associated with the Church of God in Christ," or "Members of the Church of God in Christ" (except everyone associated with this denomination may not necessarily be a "member" of the denomination). Other examples of the properness of this category include: Category:Chalcedonian Christians, Category:Arian Christians, Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians, Category:Coptic Christians, etc. Vermilib (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Consider Rename The category captures a defining characteristic. A rename may be appropriate and i will be happy to consider options offered. Alansohn (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support last suggestion. This is (as I understand it) a substantial denomination, and there is no reason why it should not exist, if it can be adequately populated by people for whom membership of this denomination is a significant characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The editor is now was briefly blocked for template blanking. Prior to his block, the user created articles on what looks like two bona fide ASIFA organized festivals, and categorized them here. The Annie Awards, which has its own template & category, are also presented by ASIFA. So that makes, by my count, five articles as well as a subcategory for the Annies. So on that basis, I change my delete nom to a rename to Category:International Animated Film Association top level category for the organization, along the lines of what we have for other major film orgs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If more ASIFA-offered (as opposed to the non-defining sponsored or accredited) film festivals can be found amongst their local chapters around the world, I'd support the creation of an International Animated Film Association festival sub-category. However, right now we just have two, so such a category is not warranted, per WP:OC#SMALL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match the main article of the category, Zuihō class aircraft carrier. (I have no special knowledge of these ships, so if the class is really known best by the "Shōhō class" name, I'll withdraw if the main article and the navbox template are renamed.) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment -- Iceland is a Nordic Country but not in Scandinavia, likewise Denmark -- possibly reverse merge, and move the article accordingly. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Merge (At the suggestion of Debresser listing an incorrectly tagged category). Original tagger's reasoning: "Merge and delete This category doesn't accurately describe what it contains. Few if any of these articles relate to "behavior" and there is already a category for transgender people. All the articles contained in it should be merged with other categories, and then this category should be deleted." Original tagger notified. Tassedethe (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. To me, the phrase "Transgender people and behavior" is just a long-winded form of "Transgender". As the "Transgender and transsexual people"cat already covers people, i see no need for a category of behaviours - notable behaviours can go to more specific sub-categores (eg. Gender transitioning or Transgender organisations) or simply go to the parent cat (Transgender).YobMod09:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. At the suggestion of Debresser listing an incorrectly tagged category. Original tagger's reasoning from talk page: "I suggest renaming this category to Category:Germanic Neopaganism, to be a subsection of Germanic paganism; see the terminology section on Asatru for reasons". Original tagger notified. Tassedethe (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep. Consensus seems to be in favour of 'Kyrgyzstani' as the appropriate adjectival form. Recommend further nomination to bring non-conforming categories into consistency. --Xdamrtalk20:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The "Kyrgystani" form is useful for distinguishing between the state of Kyrgyzstan and the Kyrgyz ethnic group. For example, Ruslan Sydykov, who plays for the Kyrgyzstan national team, is Tatar by ethnicity. He would be a Kyrgyzstani footballer but not a Kyrgyz one.-choster (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with choster in theory but I don't think this is the way things have been applied in practice. Category:Kyrgyz people is the category for the nationality, not the enthnicity. There is no Category:Kyrgyzstani people. But choster is correct when he says this is the way things should be. I think we should keep and change the "kyrgyz" ones to "kyrgyzstani" when the nationality is intended. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep and cleanup. This is in no wise a "by state" category; there are no state-level subcategories, and the listings are not for simply any hall located in a U.S. state (e.g. Rodeo Hall of Fame). What are collected here are "statewide" halls of fame, some general (Hall of Famous Missourians), though some are limited to some particular subset of persons associated with the state (Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame or Minnesota Aviation Hall of Fame). I would say the latter category of listings be moved into the respective sibling categories, leaving this category only for the six general state halls.-choster (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2009 (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:Kröd Mändoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category currently used to link the actors in a television show, unnecessary and goes against established precedent of not categorising performers by performance. Tassedethe (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Barnstorming is not a defining characteristic of sports teams (per WP:OCAT). During the 19th century and first half of the 20th century, most United States sports teams engaged in barnstorming until their leagues began forbidding the practice. (I'm not as familiar with practices in other countries.) Consequently, it would be very difficult to identify and verify which historical teams belong in this category. BRMo (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep barnstorming was a phenomenon of many different sports and a defining characteristic of such teams, both historically and such modern barnstormers as the Harlem Globetrotters and Harlem Wizards. Sure, there will be some borderline cases, which should be addressed individually without disrupting the use of the category for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll illustrate the issue with a question: Of the 16 Major League Baseball teams that existed before the 1961 expansion, how many engaged in barnstorming? I can find references to barnstorming activity by at least six of them (mostly before 1920). My guess is that most of other teams also occasionally engaged in barnstorming after the end of the season, but I don't know of any reliable sources that would identify them. Barnstorming was never the main activity for any of these teams, but it was a way for them to supplement their income after the end of the regular season. Before the 1940s barnstorming was also common for minor league baseball teams and Negro league baseball teams. Barnstorming might be a defining characteristic for some teams like the Harlem Globetrotters, but there were many other teams that engaged in the activity and for whom it is not defining. BRMo (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Presumably this could apply to every single team that was not a member of a league at one time or another. Because of the difficultly in determining whether or not this feature would apply to a team, this seems like the type of thing that should be dealt with in Barnstorm (sports), where things can be well-referenced. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Having a category for songs on a particular album seems like drastic overcategorization to me, including per the non-defining characteristic, the small with no potential for growth characteristic, and just common sense. If this category strategy becomes accepted, it will mean creation of literally thousands of new categories, given how large Category:Albums is. And some common songs that have been covered by dozens of artists and appeared on many compilations will have scores of categories they belong in. In terms of reader utility, album articles all contain very visible, very easily read "Track listing" sections that make clear what songs are on the album. That's a much better mechanism to convey this information than a category. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If the decision is that these categories are a good idea, then fine, I'll accept that and move on. I just want the community to decide this upfront, before lots of work gets put into this large-scale category expansion. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Categories are the official and long-standing system to, well, categorise articles. Unlike the plethora of infoboxes and navboxes littering articles, they are largely a behind the scenes structural system navigation and collection, with only a well-defined section out of the way at the bottom of a page. If people actually want to create 1000s of cats, so be it, but where is the problem? Surely it's better than thousands of glittering nav and info boxes that now dominate, in this case, U2 articles. --Merbabu (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with Merbabu that there are too many infobox fields and nav boxes and nav templates (you should see some of the U.S. political articles I work on ...), but I don't see that as related to this. Every song article describes the major albums the song appears on, and users can click on that to get to the album article, then read the track listing there and click on those entries to see other song articles. I don't see any advantage to these new categories for navigation. But others may disagree. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This relies on the article content (in this case a link in the tracklist) to be setup for navigation. If, like many articles, there is no link in the tracklist (ie, people try too hard to ensure that articles are linked once in an article). Cats are standard functions, behind the scenes and neat and not dependent on article content.
Anyway, my intention was to only do U2. As for the notion that this sets a precedent for 1000s of articles, why not judge each case on its merits? Ie, I hazard a guess that U2 has more album and song pages than the majority of artists on wikipedia, and hence larger scope for categorisation. --Merbabu (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward delete - while I understand Merbabu's intent that this categorization scheme be restricted to albums with several notable songs, the fact is that once a category scheme gets started up there is nothing that will restrict its growth to only those that would strictly fit this pattern. While there are certainly exceptions, in most instances an individual album is going to have very few songs on it that are independently notable, so as this scheme gets implemented we are going to end up with thousands of very small categories. I agree that there are too many navboxes in general but I don't see this category system as a means of alleviating them. Presumably the song infobox would remain, with its "precede by" and "followed by" fields. There is also the question of re-releases and covers. To offer one example, Cher used to be in the habit, each time she had a new hit, of releasing a new Greatest Hits album which included mostly the material from the last GH album along with the new hit. So a song like Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves would find itself in several GH categories which would offer little or no navigational benefit. Finally I question whether very many people would navigate album contents using a category in the first place. I don't recall ever seeing a song article that was from an album (as opposed to a stand-alone single) that didn't have in its lead sentence a link to the album it's from. It seems far more likely that someone looking for more information about the album is going to click on the album link in the article rather than the category link. The album article will serve as a navigational hub for its songs with articles and, should one run across a song or album article that isn't thusly interlinked, it's easier to type in a couple of brackets to create the link than it is to create and/or populate a micro-category. Otto4711 (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - songs on an album should be listed on the album article, and a category per album is overkill by a factor of several thousand. Occuli (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the other song articles are all listed in the article, so that having a category serves no useful purpose. They might also be added at the end of the infobox, where two of them are already listed. If the object is to enable succession boxes to be added to song articles, please don't create the missing them, as I dount we need them. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2009 (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.
