Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 10

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. Kbdank71 15:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heinrich Himmler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - There's no real need for this category -- just the main article and 2 others, which are linked prominently through the main article. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree there is no need for this category. Seems to be created in a passing moment of zeal. :-) -OberRanks (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is not sufficient valid material (Reichsführer-SS and Ordnungspolizei shouldn't be in the category; they are related to Himmler, but are not subsets of the topic of 'Heinrich Himmler') to justify an eponymous category. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS -- OlEnglish (talk) 15:28, 14 February 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 result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 15:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Club de Futbol Pachuca players to Category:C.F. Pachuca players
• Category:Pachuca managers to Category:C.F. Pachuca managers

Nominator's rationale: to match article name C.F. Pachuca and as per Category:Real Madrid C.F. players Mayumashu (talk) 23:25, 10 February 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the European Parliament by gender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This category is completely superfluous, adding an unnecessary level that impedes navigation. Its sole sub-cat, Category:Female Members of the European Parliament, should simply be placed directly in Category:Members of the European Parliament. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Err, hold on - I'm not a rabid fan of the "Members of the European Parliament by gender" category since it raises all sorts of issues, but its inclusion was dictated by the need to have the categories immediately under "Members of the European Parliament" split by subdivision. This means that the categories under "Members of the European Parliament" currently look like this:

• Members of the European Parliament by 2004 cutoff
• Members of the European Parliament by country
• Members of the European Parliament by financial interests
• Members of the European Parliament by gender
• Members of the European Parliament by group
• Members of the European Parliament by position
• Members of the European Parliament by term
• Lists of members of the European Parliament
• MEP stubs

Cgingold's proposed change would leave the category looking like this:

• Female Members of the European Parliament
• Members of the European Parliament by 2004 cutoff
• Members of the European Parliament by country
• Members of the European Parliament by financial interests
• Members of the European Parliament by group
• Members of the European Parliament by position
• Members of the European Parliament by term
• Lists of members of the European Parliament
• MEP stubs

Cgingold's proposed change is not an improvement, IMHO. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your explanation as to why you created the category. To begin with, what you've pointed to as having "dictated" its creation really is not among the considerations that govern the creation and naming of categories. Just because there are a number of categories of the form "MEPs by X" doesn't mean that the names of all of the other sub-cats are required to match that. It's really a very odd notion that I've never seen suggested anywhere before -- kind of like saying that it would be unacceptable to replace one whitewall tire on a car with a blackwall tire because... well, it would stick out. :) Meanwhile, nothing you've said has any real bearing on the fundamental issue re Category:Members of the European Parliament by gender: it just isn't needed.

It seems to me that what you're really concerned about here is how those sub-cats are sorted. I'm not sure why you placed Cat:Female MEPs at the top of your list. It could just as well go somewhere else, for instance immediately before or after Cat:Lists of MEPs. Hope that helps... - Cgingold (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two points, as follows:

• You have bowled me over with the force of your logic, and I retire gracefully in the wake of your reasoning. I withdraw my objection to the category deletion.
• You'd put a blackwall tire on a car with three whitewall tires?!!? :-)

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is no Category:Male members of the European Parliament, so as a container category (which by definition is all it can ever be) it only holds one subcategory and therefore is unnecessary and just adds another layer without serving a purpose. I don't think it's necessary to have a "by gender" match to the other "members ... by ..." subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Female presumably appears first because it starts with F, whereas the rest start with M. I suppose we could rename the Female category to Category:Members of the European Parliament (Female). Peterkingiron (talk) 00:34, 12 February 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete Currently includes three articles (novel, film, video game); not bad, but hardly a Media franchise and it fails WP:OC#SMALL. If it expands later into a Fictional universe it can be created then. 68.167.191.78 (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Create a navbox template to cover all contents, then delete. This is a small unexpandable category. Templates serve much better than categories here. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 12 February 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete -: this category is more an essay category for all kind of things. Category:Determinants of health should be deleted. GLGermann (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you elaborate on what you mean by "essay category"? I've also notified the creator, so perhaps we will hear from him/her as well. Cgingold (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Anything that could potentially be harmful could in theory be placed in here. Right now, Category:Employment, Category:Environment, Category:Government, and Category:Literacy (literacy?) are included. This is much too broad and too much of a grab-bag of what any particular editor wants to emphasise as being harmful to health based on his or her POV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:20, 14 February 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 result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 16:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Columbus, Ohio suburbs to Category:Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Merge, redundant, and the metropolitan area provides a less arbitrary and less POV basis for grouping these. See also prior CFDs for deleting Category:Suburbs, renaming Category:Washington, D.C. suburbs to Category:Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area, and renaming Category:Nashville suburbs to Category:Nashville metropolitan area. I was originally this category's creator, but it has been edited by others since. Postdlf (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Acntx (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Municipalities in the Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area or something like that, and remove all items in the category that don't fit this new definition. It would be useful to have a category simply for municipalities, to the exclusion of unincorporated communities and anything else that would be included in the metro area category, and by basing it on the larger metro area category, we could avoid the problems of being arbitrary and POV. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't that just result in Category:Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area directly containing only the CDPs and other unincorporated communities, with all the municipalities then subcategorized therein by Category:Municipalities in the Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area? I don't see the benefit; it seems like it would just add an unnecessary navigational hurdle. Note also there is no Category:Municipalities in Ohio parent category. The categories for different classes and types of municipalities and unincorporated communities in Ohio instead all go into Category:Settlements in Ohio. Postdlf (talk) 16:44, 11 February 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hancock's Half Hour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small eponymous category with little or no potential for expansion. Contents are sufficiently interlinked. Otto4711 (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Create a navbox template to cover all contents, then delete. This is a small unexpandable category. Templates serve much better than categories here. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:27, 12 February 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small and eponymous category with no likelihood of expansion. The meagre contents are adequately interlinked. Otto4711 (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create a navbox template to cover all contents, then delete. This is a small unexpandable category. Templates serve much better than categories here. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not to mention the fact that it's ambiguously named. This is about the television series, not the breakfast food. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 12 February 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another category for a minor sporting award; these hall of fame categories are routinely deleted as overcategorization. The list can be worked on at Alabama Sports Hall of Fame.Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 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 result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:State cabinet secretaries of Puerto Rico to Category:Cabinet secretaries of Puerto Rico

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Puerto Rico is not a state, thus this category's name should not conform to the others within State cabinet secretaries of the United States. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. I agree on the name of the category. What I'm wondering is whether it should be removed from the parent, State cabinet secretaries of the United States -- so I also posted notification of the CFD at the WikiProject. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I also agree, Puerto Rico is not a "state" and therefore "Cabinet secretaries of Puerto Rico" would be proper and not misleading. I also agree with Cgingold, that it should be removed from "State cabinet secretaries of the United States" because Puerto Rico as a commonwealth/territory/colony has a political relationship with the United States that the 50 states of the union do not have. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (nom). For the time being, it might be better placed in the more general Category:Political office-holders in the United States. Could it go in Category:United States territorial officials? PR is not really called a "territory", it being an unincorporated one and all, but I see Members of the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico is within United States territorial officials. I'm not sure how this all works together in the categorization scheme, or if it has just been done ad hoc by people like me who don't really have much of a clue about it beyond knowing that PR is not a state. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, As the creator of the category, I would like to respond to this nomination and the comments in support of it. First of all, I am well aware that Puerto Rico is not a state, and the only reason I named the category in that manner was to maintain consistency with similarly named subcategories of Category:State cabinet secretaries of the United States. Having said that, I do not object to the proposed renaming. With regard to the proposal to remove the category from the aforementioned parent category, I would like to point out that the category description, which I must disclose that I created,does allow for the inclusion of subcategories and articles such as this one. For my fellow Wikipedians who still believe the category should be removed from Category:State cabinet secretaries of the United States nonwithstanding the point I just laid out, I would like to propose two alternatives. (1) Rename Category:State cabinet secretaries of the United States to specifically allow for the inclusion of Cabinet secretaries from non-state possessions of the U.S. such as Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, OR (2) Create a new Parent Category for subcategories and articles relating to cabinet secretaries from the aforementioned non-state possessions of the U.S. --TommyBoy (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from an Englishman. Tony the Marine's initial proposal appears to be appropriate. The word "state" must be removed, since it is not one (unless that is the title of the official). The problem appears more to be how to parent it. My reaction would be to treat it as if it were a 51st state for that purpose. Alternately, it could go United States territorial officials, but that would need to be provided with a headnote to explain that it covers all polities of USA other than states. This raises a wider issue that needs to be resolved by US citzens as to how to parent categories for Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Tony. I agree this requires a systemic solution, but pending that, I would support parenting with "United States territorial officials" as per Peterkingiron.--Cerejota (talk) 23:32, 14 February 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.