Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 9 April 11 >

April 10[edit]

Category:MewithoutYou[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) 18:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only meaningful content for the band are its album articles which are already appropriately categorized by standard convention. WP:OC#EPONYMOUS StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – 1 valid subcat, no inclusion criteria otherwise. Oculi (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The band's discography is already listed in the main article; the category is redundant and violates [[WP:OC#EPONYMOUS]]. Dusty|💬|You can help! 13:06, 11 April 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:Films produced by Angelina Jolie[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) 18:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See WP:OC#SMALL; category is small and not likely to grow beyond a few entries (currently has just one). Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the pertinent question is whether the producer is a defining characteristic of a film. To judge from the vestigial Category:Films by producer and the substantial Category:Films by director, the director is defining and the producer is not. Oculi (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oculi: "the director is defining and the producer is not". --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:39, 11 April 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:Films produced by Cate Blanchett[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. – Fayenatic London 18:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is small and should be deleted. Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The producer is not an inherent characteristic of a film to the point that it would justify small categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 25 April 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:Angelina Jolie[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. – Fayenatic London 18:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See WP:OC#EPONYMOUS; we do not need a category for every actor, not even for favorite ones. Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not large enough to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are two subcategories that could be merged back to their parent. Making this category reasonably large. Dimadick (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is only one subcategory now and it is also subcategories of other cats. Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:02, 18 April 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:Brad Pitt[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. – Fayenatic London 18:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need a category for every actor? Wouldn't a "See Also" section accomplish the same goal with less category clutter? Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:24, 10 April 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:Cate Blanchett[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. Sub-cat was also deleted. – Fayenatic London 18:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the rationale at WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Category contains the main article, the husband (since when do we categorize by marriage anyway?) and two dresses. Hardly enough for an eponymous category. Nymf talk to me 18:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an example of categories gone wild.Dusty|💬|You can help! 21:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is fairly common for eponymous categories to include the person's spouse if we have an aritcle on them. See for example Category:Rutherford B. Hayes which includes the article on Hayes' wife.
  • Delete This does not meet the high requirements for creating an eponymous category. It is not large enough to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the absence of inclusion criteria permits 2 dresses and a husband to collect together in a random fashion. Oculi (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tiny category, little chance of expansion. Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subcat for her films will need to be reparented. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 14 April 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:Alabama nonfiction[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 to Category:Alabama culture. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as WP:OCAT. There are no other US state-related subcats of nonfiction. All the contents are already categorised in American history books, memoirs or autobiographies. Just move the new sub-cat Category:Books by Booker T. Washington up into Category:Alabama culture. Note: if not deleted, it should be renamed with a hyphen i.e. Category:Alabama non-fiction. – Fayenatic London 18:27, 10 April 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:Comparisons to Nazism and the Holocaust[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) 20:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Odd category that takes in a variety of subjects from Criticism of the Israeli government to the Genocide Awareness Project, an anti-abortion display, to The Soup Nazi, a sitcom episode about an authoritarian chef. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Essentially a "shared-part-of-name" category which is otherwise indiscriminate. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is grouping unlike things, and at times POV-pushing. Criticism of the Israeli government does in some cases involve comparison to the Nazis, but not all critcism involves such. Another article is about an internment camp set up in Norway after the war to detain women who it was felt had been too closely connected with the German occupiers. There is not really a central theme here, especially since it is either the Holocaust or Nazis, so I think we should just get rid of this mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; also see Godwin's law so this ends up being a universal category, eventually. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Such comparisons should be mentioned in the relevant articles, but I doubt they are "defining" elements of any of them. Dimadick (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- While this is not an attack category, it is clearly a category of attack articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a defining characteristic of any of the articles therein. Valenciano (talk) 07:09, 17 April 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:2010s Western film stubs[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: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very undersized stub category. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 13:47, 10 April 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:Great Lakes Council geography stubs[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: Keep. Dawynn (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Undersized stub category. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This cat is hardly undersized. It has 22 articles presently. The purpose of this category is to identify stub articles related to a specific geographical area, which is one of 11 in a larger geographical area. It was created because the parent cat included almost 200 stubs, and it was impossible to readily identify which articles belonged to a specific geographical area, which makes things difficult for editors who are actually maintaining the articles. Rather than create a few cats it was decided to create cats for all 11 areas for consistency. That there are only a few stubs now is actually a good thing, but there are at least 88 other articles yet to be created for this region; history has shown that they are created sporadically and often are created as mere stubs, so the cat has a very definite purpose. It's common practice to keep even small cats (not that this is one of the smaller cats - there are plenty with only 3 or 4 articles) that form part of a larger tree. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See note below on Singleton Shire geography stubs regarding the usefulness of templates and the corresponding lack of necessity for tiny stub categories. Dawynn (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ideal stub category is an empty one, finding and sorting stub articles is time consuming categories are the best practise we have for articles. Templating categories doesnt capture new additions nor does it maintain changes in article quality as they occur. Gnangarra 08:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge category, but keep template per my comments at the discussion on Singleton Shire geography stubs. And WP:TROUT the nominator for making a series of separate nominations for these subcats of Category:Hunter Region geography stubs, rather than doing one group CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 18 April 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:Maitland geography stubs[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: Keep. Dawynn (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very undersized stub category. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This cat is hardly undersized. It has 15 articles presently. The purpose of this category is to identify stub articles related to a specific geographical area, which is one of 11 in a larger geographical area. It was created because the parent cat included almost 200 stubs, and it was impossible to readily identify which articles belonged to a specific geographical area, which makes things difficult for editors who are actually maintaining the articles. Rather than create a few cats it was decided to create cats for all 11 areas for consistency. That there are only a few stubs now is actually a good thing, but there are at least 32 other articles yet to be created for this region; history has shown that they are created sporadically and often are created as mere stubs, so the cat has a very definite purpose. It's common practice to keep even small cats (not that this is one of the smaller cats - there are plenty with only 3 or 4 articles) that form part of a larger tree. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See note below on Singleton Shire geography stubs regarding the usefulness of templates and the corresponding lack of necessity for tiny stub categories. Dawynn (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ideal stub category is an empty one, finding and sorting stub articles is time consuming categories are the best practise we have for articles. Templating categories doesnt capture new additions nor does it maintain changes in article quality as they occur. Gnangarra 08:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge category, but keep template per my comments at the discussion on Singleton Shire geography stubs. And WP:TROUT the nominator for making a series of separate nominations for these subcats of Category:Hunter Region geography stubs, rather than doing one group CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support [{WP:TROUT]] Gnangarra 11:02, 19 April 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:Newcastle, New South Wales geography stubs[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: Keep. Dawynn (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Undersized stub category. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This cat is hardly undersized. It has 35 articles presently. The purpose of this category is to identify stub articles related to a specific geographical area, which is one of 11 in a larger geographical area. It was created because the parent cat included almost 200 stubs, and it was impossible to readily identify which articles belonged to a specific geographical area, which makes things difficult for editors who are actually maintaining the articles. Rather than create a few cats it was decided to create cats for all 11 areas for consistency. That there are only a few stubs now is actually a good thing. It's common practice to keep even small cats (not that this is one of the smaller cats - there are plenty with only 3 or 4 articles) that form part of a larger tree. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See note below on Singleton Shire geography stubs regarding the usefulness of templates and the corresponding lack of necessity for tiny stub categories. Dawynn (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ideal stub category is an empty one, finding and sorting stub articles is time consuming categories are the best practise we have for articles. Templating categories doesnt capture new additions nor does it maintain changes in article quality as they occur. Gnangarra 08:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge category, but keep template per my comments at the discussion on Singleton Shire geography stubs. And WP:TROUT the nominator for making a series of separate nominations for these subcats of Category:Hunter Region geography stubs, rather than doing one group CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 18 April 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:Port Stephens Council geography stubs[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: Keep. Dawynn (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very undersized stub category. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This cat is hardly undersized. It has 17 articles presently. The purpose of this category is to identify stub articles related to a specific geographical area, which is one of 11 in a larger geographical area. It was created because the parent cat included almost 200 stubs, and it was impossible to readily identify which articles belonged to a specific geographical area, which makes things difficult for editors who are actually maintaining the articles. Rather than create a few cats it was decided to create cats for all 11 areas for consistency. That there are only a few stubs now is actually a good thing, but there are at least 8 other articles yet to be created for this region; history has shown that they are created sporadically and often are created as mere stubs, so the cat has a very definite purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See note below on Singleton Shire geography stubs regarding the usefulness of templates and the corresponding lack of necessity for tiny stub categories. Dawynn (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
please if you want multiple categories with similar structures about similar topic treated the same then please do a single CfD rather than creating multiple disjouinted discussion and expecting people to follow them.. When creating discussion please have the courtesy to answer questions in each discussion rather than expecting people to chase after you. Gnangarra 08:39, 15 April 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:Singleton Shire geography stubs[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: Keep. Dawynn (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very undersized stub category. Delete category, upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The purpose of this category is to identify stub articles related to a specific geographical area, which is one of 11 in a larger geographical area. It was created because the parent cat included almost 200 stubs, and it was impossible to readily identify which articles belonged to a specific geographical area, which makes things difficult for editors who are actually maintaining the articles. Rather than create a few cats it was decided to create cats for all 11 areas for consistency. That there are only a few stubs now is actually a good thing, but there are more than 90 other articles yet to be created for this region; history has shown that they are created sporadically and often are created as mere stubs, so the cat has a very definite purpose. It's common practice to keep small cats that form part of a larger tree, this is such a case. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely understand why we would want to have all of the templates. But this is discussing the categories. I'm all for keeping the templates, but the categories are undersized and not necessary. It's very easy to see which articles are tagged by a particular template using the "What links here" link in the toolbox. And honestly, 200 articles is a very comfortable size for a stub category. Dawynn (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I've pointed out, there are plenty of categories with only 3 or 4 articles in them. There is no defined minimum size for categories but the general rule of thumb is 4-5 articles, not 60, and none of these cats are that small. Saying that categories with 6-35 articles are undersized is incongruous with general category practice . Size is only one aspect though, and you haven't addressed the issue of related articles, which I've mentioned above. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • This goes back to the stub sorting project. When they turned over the deletion of stub categories to CfD, their guidelines were left in place. As I recall, it recommended creating a new stub category if there would be at least 60 articles and deleting if there were less then 60. I'll leave it for you to do the research. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why 60? Seems an arbitrary number. Why not 50? Or 25? Or 10? Or 237? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub rationales. Dawynn (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's a statement, it doesn't explain why "Categories of between 60 and 800 stubs are an optimum size". An optimum size is what best suits the purpose for which the category is being used. Usually size has nothing to do with it, it's the organisational heirachy that's important. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, not only does it provide some reasoning behind the threshold (Why can't we have a stub type with only a small number stubs?), it gives guidance, for those that are unhappy with the threshold, to find other means that work for their particular project (Is there an alternative to stub types that can be used by my WikiProject?). Dawynn (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • The reasoning and rationales don't really make a lot of sense outside WPSS. The general rule of thumb for category creation is 4-5 articles. Who decided "60-800" was optimum? "Anything smaller, and there is serious risk of an editor needing to look in a number of categories while working on a similar subject" - well, in this case no, because the category hierarchy clearly explains which articles are in which category so f you're looking for Singleton Shire related stubs, then "Singleton Shire geography stubs" is the obvious choice. "and also a danger of a category being repeatedly deleted and re-created as it is emptied and new stubs are made" - Umm no, we have lots of maintenance categories that are empty most of the time. They don't get deleted just because they're empty, they get tagged with something like {{Tracking category}}. "A smaller threshold for stub category creation would also lead to a likely proliferation of stub categories, increasing the workload of stub-sorters, who already have to monitor and transfer stubs into several thousand stub categories" - Hang on - If stub articles are already sorted into appropriate categories, as these are, what would stub-sorters be doing there anyway? "Assessment templates are often a far more useful tool for WikiProjects than stub templates" - Not if you're trying to identify stubs related to a particular area they're not. and so on.... --AussieLegend (✉) 14:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ideal stub category is an empty one, finding and sorting stub articles is time consuming categories are the best practise we have for articles. Templating categories doesnt capture new additions nor does it maintain changes in article quality as they occur. Gnangarra 08:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it would be pointless to "keep" empty categories. And, as indicated in the rationales article above, that's one of the reasons we steer well clear of anything approaching empty categories.
    • Look, if we take all of the undersized sub-categories found under Category:Hunter Region geography stubs‎, and put them back in a single category, we end up with less than 150 articles -- that won't even fill up a single page. Meanwhile, just one level higher, Category:New South Wales geography stubs is threatening to move into Category:Overpopulated stub categories. It would be far more helpful to the stub sorting group, and to Australian editors, to break down oversized categories rather than atomizing categories that are already a pleasant size. Dawynn (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I've pointed out above, we have lots of maintenance categories that are empty most of the time. Empty categories are not pointless if they serve a purpose. Your argument about helpfulness to Australian editors doesn't fly; the keep responses that you've seen here and at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 11, where you've nominated related categories, have all been from Australian editors. It was an Australian editor who created these categories because the mixture of stub articles from 11 different areas in one category was most unhelpful. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge category, keep template. The nominator is right that this is too small for a stub category; however, if the templates are kept, then the categories can be easily recreated if needed.
    The size thresholds for stub categories have been stable for a long time, and have worked well in ensuring that stub categs remain at a manageable size, without becoming atomised. If editors disagree with those thresholds, they should start a centralised discussion about those guidelines, rather than demanding that they be ignored because they have never encountered them before, and have never stopped to look at the wider issues which have led to those guidelines.
    However, I think that the nominator has been really sloppy in making lots of separate nominations rather than one group nomination. This has just led to discussion being mostly duplicated, and partly fragmented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discussion should really be specific to these categories since they've been "singled" out for deletion, so what the stub sorting project may have been doing with stub categories is really irrelevant. Categories, like everything else at Wikipedia, don't belong to any specific project. The nominator has made various arguments that are all at odds with the way that the rest of Wikipedia works. Categories with less than 60 articles in them exist everywhere on Wikipedia, empty maintenance categories are commonplace, and even undersized categories (less than 4 or 5 articles) are not deleted when they're part of an established tree. A large category with 140 articles doesn't help editors who have to actually maintain the articles, which is why the categories ere created in the first place. About the only argument there is against these categories is that they contain less than 60 articles, but size alone isn't a reasonable argument. Arguments against these categories should at least explain why these specific categories are causing a problem for people sorting stubs and why their requirements are more important than editors maintaining articles. Let's face it, recent attempts at sorting these stubs have demonstrated exactly the opposite. Recently the nominator tagged and untagged a series of articles, several of which I, as a maintainer of these articles had to re-tag correctly.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Had the specific subcats not existed, and these articles were just 6 more added to a category of 140 articles, they might have remained incorrectly tagged for an indefinite period. The more reasonably sized cats are far more useful to people who actually maintain the articles in them. The stub sorters really, when it all comes down to it, have very little to do with these cats on a day to day basis. Deleting these cats makes Category:Hunter Region geography stubs‎ pretty much useless to anyone, article maintainers will have to find some other way of identifying related stub articles and the stub sorters don't really have anything to sort. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll accept that I could have kept all of these categories under one discussion. Granted. As far as my tagging and untagging your articles -- instead of criticizing me for that, you should be thanking me. Thank me for finding Hunter Region stub articles that had not been previously tagged. Thank me for untagging Hunter Region articles that had passed beyond stub status. As far as whether I had found the correct tag, that's rather a minor point, when previously they were not tagged at all.
      As far as singling out your project, look at the wider picture. Review April 10 - 12 in these categories for discussion, and you'll see that other categories were also nominated. A little further research will show that I've been either filling or nominating all stub categories with fewer than 20 articles. 9 of the 11 categories here fall in that under-20 area. And there's only 8 other stub categories outside of your project that still fall under 20 articles. It's not so much picking on your project, as your project trying desperately to break the conventions of the stub sorting project.
      But we've come to an impasse. And there's very few editors working for the stub sorting project now. I'm going to go ahead and close each of these discussions, keeping the categories for now. Please accept the tag indicating that these categories are still undersized for a stub category. Dawynn (talk) 12:07, 24 April 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:Baltimore Colts (1953-1983) seasons[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: keep (i.e. do not rename). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed speedy. The parent category is Category:Baltimore Colts. The other subcategories are Category:Baltimore Colts broadcasters and Category:Baltimore Colts postseason. This one should be renamed to match. We never disambiguate categories for teams when the team is the overwhelmingly most common use of the name. For instance, we don't (nor should we) have Category:New York Yankees (1901–) just because there was briefly other teams that used the same name. (But even if we do want to disambiguate Category:Baltimore Colts and its subcategories, they should be considered all together in a separate nomination, and there is no sense any of the subcategories having different formats at any given time.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
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:Materials involved in Hinduism[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: listify and delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being used in a particular religion is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a material. E.g. the Agarwood article doesn't mention Hinduism. This could be listified. DexDor (talk) 05:31, 10 April 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:Breakfast foods[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 03:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most/all of the articles in this category are about foods that can (and are) consumed in meals other than breakfast (e.g. Ham). Many of the articles don't mention breakfast at all. Other articles in the category are about foods that may be associated with breakfast in some countries/periods, but for which it is not a defining characteristic. Some articles in this category (e.g. Full breakfast) are about breakfast, but are already in more suitable categories. There is a similar CFD for breakfast drinks. This category should be replaced by the (recently created) list of breakfast foods which may need to be upmerged. A category for foods developed specifically for use at breakfast might work, but this isn't such a category. DexDor (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (I would have preferred to see the previous discussion resolved before this one is opened. Now we have two parallel discussions going on about essentially the same thing. When the other discussion is closed and resolved, it could make what to do here more obvious.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but move Category:Breakfast cereals and the list up into the parent categories. – Fayenatic London 18:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete foods rarely are universally eaten at the same time. Ham is on this list. However I know lots of people who have ham for dinner, and I know many people who specifically have ham as part of their easter-dinner. Then there is the fact that ham is one of the most common sandwich meats, and sandwiches are most heavily lunch foods, so it makes no sense. I could say the same thing for other things on this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category is too broad and subjective to satisfy WP:DEFINING. Ibadibam (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per breakfast beverages -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete few foods are specifically only eaten at breakfast. I have seen breakfast cereals bing eaten as a supper. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peterkingiron and others. Foods may be eaten at any time of day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially if the category is trimmed so that it is just breakfast only foods (cereal, oatmeal, pancakes)OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are many people who have made it a general practice to eat pancakes or cereal at times other than breakfast.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I personally enjoy a good pancake dinner. And lots of people eat cold, leftover pizza for breakfast (gross). This is not a sustainably defining attribute to support a category, since it's so culturally variable. --Lquilter (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I regularly eat breakfast foods at times other than breakfast. That doesn't mean they aren't breakfast foods. I often eat chicken for breakfast, again chicken doesn't become a breakfast food. "Breakfast foods" defines a specific type of food that each culture determines to be breakfast foods. Those foods remain breakfast foods regardless of when members of that culture or members of another culture eat those foods. Ryan Vesey 15:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but what does it mean to say that a "culture determines" something to be breakfast foods? I'm part of my culture and I've determined pancakes are for dinner, and you're part of your culture and you've determined chicken is for breakfast. That would seem to indicate that there isn't really a cultural consensus on breakfast foods. --Lquilter (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is faulty. People kill people, that doesn't mean there isn't a cultural consensus against murder. I haven't determined chicken is for breakfast, I often eat chicken for breakfast. It isn't a breakfast food. On this line of logic, why is it acceptable to have a category for breakfast cereals? Cereal can be eaten at any time of day, in fact, I often ate cereal late at night. Cereals are considered "breakfast cereals" because they have been culturally associated with breakfast. Eating cereal at another time of day doesn't change that. Ryan Vesey 16:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that labeling a food a breakfast food doesn't exclude it from being part of other meals on a regular basis. George Washington is in Category:British America army officers and Category:United States Army generals. This is unproblematic because he was both. Ryan Vesey 16:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would venture to say that the cultural consensus against murder is a lot stronger than the cultural consensus around labeling and eating particular foods at particular mealtimes. --Lquilter (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
George Washington's occupation was a defining characteristic, and directly related to his notability. In any culture, he could be accurately described as a United States Army general. Pancakes are not strictly defined as a breakfast food. People in another culture wouldn't necessarily describe them as a breakfast food, although they could certainly describe them as an American breakfast food. If anyone thinks there's some merit to creating Category:American breakfast foods and every other culturally appropriate category, then by all means, go for it. I'll look forward to chatting with you about it if it ever gets CfDed. As for breakfast cereals, that's a defining description. What else would you call a breakfast cereal, if not "breakfast cereal"? Ibadibam (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The breakfast cereal comment is spot-on. Because we also use the word "cereal" with "cereal grains", the use of "breakfast cereal" helps to disambiguate the concepts. It's not an argument for a general classification of foods-by-meal. (Could we call foods-by-meal a species of overcategorization of performer-by-performance? (-: ) --Lquilter (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a person is a specific type of general because they hold that office. A food is not a food until it is consumed, and that relates to a specific incarnation of the food and not the food in general. The very concept of what meals are is culturally determined, and it shows a particular focus on specific cultures to even try to determine what food are breakfast foods, etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 25 April 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:Heads of State of Israel[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: keep. Wizardman 14:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Persia/Iran is clearly the same country. Trying to see anything as a predecessor to the modern nation state of Israel is extremely problematic. It is extremely POV-pushing to put the crusader kings as a precedent. That is totally a claim of Hamas and its allies meant to undermine the legitimacy of the current state of Israel, and ignore the fact that about half its population is Jews whose ancestors have been in the Middle East or North Africa since at least 1492 and often longer than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Turkey is the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, so there's some validity there. But what about Iraq? Seems like that category needs to be revised like this one. Ibadibam (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a category system - the contents of the category (its subcats) is not properly before us. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons offered by Carlossuarez46. Dimadick (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to a more neutral Category:Rulers of Israel. This could include the Prime Ministers (currently as "see also" item). It also removes the problem that Roman governors were not heads of state, being subject to the Roman Emperor. I am not sure about the crusader Kings of Jeruslem, since their state was not either called Israel of Judah. IN any event the category (if kept) will need a head note to explain what is and is not to be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That renaming would significantly change the categ's scope, because a ruler is not necessarily the same thing as a head of state.
      In modern Israel, the ruler is the Prime Minister, but the President is the Head of State. The United States combines the two roles, as does France, but most other European countries have a non-executive HoS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It should probably be renamed as suggested by Peterkingiron, but this needs to be done for the entire tree, not just this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:10, 19 April 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_April_10&oldid=1138397462"