Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 8 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_8

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. Dana boomer (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels set in Paris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article. The category could certainly be expanded, but this does not seem like an appropriate way to categorize novels. Many (most?) novels take place in more than one city, and the choice of city is rarely defining. LeSnail (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is part of a vast system created by User:Stefanomione that I've been worried about for some time. Also note that he's got it -- and other novel categories -- under Category:Media set in Foo. Novels are works, not media, surely? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This branch of the system doesn't appear to be very vast. Category:Novels by city of setting only has 2 subcats, of which this is one. LeSnail (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. What I meant was that it was part of the much larger Category:Media by setting, much of it created by User:Stefanomione during a brief burst this past winter. My concern goes all the way up to his Category:Media by parameter, though, this little branch can indeed be dealt with as a separate case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. ...what... WP:OVERCAT and non-defining. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My conundrum in touching this categorization system of his is that it does have a well-established Films set in FOO category tree as precedent. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That certainly doesn't make it right. We'll get to them when we get to them. WP:OSE, amirite? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are correct. But I'm still neutral on this point. Novels by place of setting could be defining, I guess. I'll trust the consensus on this, either way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would have to see an encyclopedic treatment of "City X in literature" before I'd buy it. I would also be worried about the majority of novels set in multiple real world cities. Would the category section of that article be a bolus, listing every location visited in the book? This categorization approach is not generalizable. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have a whole series of Category:Films by country of setting, which includes deep in its hierarchy Category:Films set in Paris. I see no logical distinction between a different treatment of novels and of films. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further...directly addressing the nom: most films take place in more than one city, as well - the DaVinci Code a good example, but alas our categorization is to help guide one from article to related article; it seems that those wanting to see what other novels (like films) were set in Paris, this would be the best solution to ease that search. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not convinced that we need novels by city. I have not made a decision on the higher level categories at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2011 (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 result of the discussion was: Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zack Heart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category with only 1 article and little potential for expansion. LeSnail (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete And the sole article being the eponymous article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2011 (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 result of the discussion was: Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Outback Zack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a fictional character. Contains only one article with little potential for expansion. LeSnail (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary overcategorization. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2011 (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 result of the discussion was: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT television to Category:LGBT-related television

Nominator's rationale: I have never met a gay television. Revised name matches parent and most subcats. LeSnail (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There should probably be a redirect here. LeSnail (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename (and redirect, if judged necessary) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2011 (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 result of the discussion was: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 18. Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Greek–Italian relations to Category:Greece–Italy relations.

Nominator's rationale: To match format of other subcats of Category:Bilateral relations of Italy and most other subcats of Category:Bilateral relations of Greece. LeSnail (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, no problem. Constantine ✍ 21:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I changed the two dashes to an endash, if you don't mind. Otherwise, support. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The main article is at Greco-Italian relations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 11 May 2011 (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 result of the discussion was: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Viborg to Category:Viborg, Denmark

Nominator's rationale: To match main article name. Note that Viborg is a disambig page. LeSnail (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK for me. It's actually quite obvious. :-) Best regards --Pixi Uno (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match the parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:14, 11 May 2011 (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 result of the discussion was: Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Michio Kaku (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category with one article and one subcat. Seems unlikely to expand. LeSnail (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2011 (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 result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expatriate models in Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Bizarre and trivial intersection of characteristics. LeSnail (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Expatriates in Mexico. There is no Category:Expatriate models. Occuli (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Occuli. Trivial, as is obvious. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2011 (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 result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expatriate models in Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Bizarre and trivial intersection of characteristics. LeSnail (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Expatriates in Brazil like above. Trivial, as is obvious. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2011 (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 result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Expatriate models in Peru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Bizarre and trivial intersection of characteristics. Only one article. LeSnail (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Expatriates in Peru like above. Trivial, as is obvious. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2011 (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 result of the discussion was: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 18. Dana boomer (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Least concern plants to ???

Category:Least Concern species to ??? (and subcats with similar naming)

Category:Near Threatened species to ??? (and subcats with similar naming)

Category:Near Threatened biota of the United States to ???

Category:Conservation dependent species to ???

Nominator's rationale: There is inconsistency in capitalization in these categories. I don't know enough about conservation to have an opinion either way but it would be nice to be consistent. It seems most use lower case for the second word except those listed here but that need not be the case. I have no idea. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critically endangered as a generic conservation status taken up by several status systems, should be lower case. Critically endangered as a specific conservation status defined under a specific status system should follow the capitalization used by that system. So Category:Critically endangered species but Category:IUCN Red List Critically Endangered species. Things get messy when dealing with statuses like "Near Threatened" which may or may not have been used by only one status system. Someone needs to work through the renaming implications of all this, and come back with a more concrete proposal. Hesperian 03:34, 12 May 2011 (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 result of the discussion was: Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American people of Peruvian-Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Given that WIkipedia indicates that there are only approximately 10,000 people of the Jewish religion living in Peru, the odds that there will be enough of them who are notable enough for a Wikipedia article and have emigrated to the US to make a well-populated category is extremely doubtful. I can't see this ever being populated, so we should delete until there is some evidence that there are people to fill it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – created, apparently, to house Josh Keaton but he is not of such descent according to his article. In any case, it would not be a defining characteristic. Occuli (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete triple intersections are hardly more than trivialities. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for the reasons given by Qwyr, Occuli and Carlos alike. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above, nothing else to say. – ukexpat (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2011 (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 result of the discussion was: Merge and delete. Dana boomer (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hamlets in Illinois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category essentially covers the same topic as Category:Unincorporated communities in Illinois, and since "hamlet" isn't a standard term for communities in Illinois, the pages in it should be moved to the other, larger category. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Unincorporated communities in Illinois. "Hamlets" apparently are undifferentiated from any other unincorporated communities in Illinois. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge for the reasons outlined by the nominator. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge for the reasons outline by TheCatalyst31. Oregon and New York State are the only states that hamlets would be use as division of local government. This is not use in Illinois. Thank you-RFD (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2011 (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.