Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17

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. — ξ^xplicit 22:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Films starring the director to Category:?

Nominator's rationale: Rename to...something, as "starring" is not NPOV-language nor is it clear what it means. There are films in which the director is also the lead actor (Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven, Woody Allen in Annie Hall) there are films in which the director appears in a significant, but not lead role (Spike Lee in She's Gotta Have It, Orson Welles in Touch of Evil), and there are films in which the director acts in a single scene (Martin Scorsese in Taxi Driver). The current name pretends like it establishes a threshold when it doesn't, and I don't think there really is a clear dividing line between the three "categories" I have just described (and the category's current contents are not limited to lead roles by any argument). There's also the possibility that this is just trivia that should be noted in a list, but that's at least not my initial impression. postdlf (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points made by postdlf, all of which are apt. I will add another example. I just saw this category added to the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail, a film which had two directors, both of whom appear in various roles as part of an ensemble. Neither could be described as the "star," per se. But, how to retitle the category without the new title being too long? Perhaps, Films featuring the director? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As non-defining and trivial in relation to the film (in the most part). There are notable exceptions (Citizen Kane), but in the main, a director's appearence in his/her own film isn't notable. Also WP:OVERCAT by performance too. Lugnuts (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More There's also the better category Category:Films directed by actors. Take the Orsen Wells example, and you see that Category:Films directed by Orson Welles is in the former. This makes this category redundant, as any director "starring" in their own film must therefore be an actor. Lugnuts (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That category structure, while certainly more clear, captures something different—films directed by actors regardless of whether those actors also appeared in them. The category under discussion targets only those films in which the directors also acted. postdlf (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator and Lugnuts. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It just isn't a category that anyone is going to search through. Szzuk (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 22:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian hill stations to Category:Hill stations in India

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the other country categories in Category:Hill stations. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2010 (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 06:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting: Category:G'$ Up artists

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category of non-notable record label. G'$ Up redirects to Lil Scrappy. — ξ^xplicit 20:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nonsense category. Szzuk (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2010 (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 (category has remained empty). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Prehistoric creatures of North America to Category:Prehistoric animals of North America

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This category is redundant with the preexisting category Prehistoric animals of North America, except for the less-encyclopediac "creature". It could also be deleted. J. Spencer (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete per nominator. Non-encyclopedic title, already redundant with Category:Prehistoric animals of North America. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Duplication. Szzuk (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 19:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nigerian female basketball players to Category:Nigerian women's basketball players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. to match Category:Women's basketball players.TM 18:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• With just 4 entries why bother. Szzuk (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, User:Sphilbrick noted on my talk page that he thinks this category name (and the other ones) "literally means, Basketball players belonging to American women. I would think "American women basketball players" would be better, or ""American female basketball players". I don't think agree, but I figured I'd leave it here for more comment.--TM 03:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what about those who are less than 18? (ie. not women) 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. We don't need to worry about those less than 18 years old because the name of the sport is women's basketball. If "girls" are playing it, it's still women's basketball. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:59, 25 April 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hispanic American people to Category:Hispanic and Latino American people

Nominator's rationale: in conjunction with below's nominations. This naming does not fit the now established convention, but at some point this page should function simply as a holding page for Category:American people of Spanish descent, Category:American people of Latin American descent, and a few others, that links/fits well with those in the below nominations Mayumashu (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The proposed name contains the two official and most popular names for the group, and matches the main articles' titles (Hispanic and Latino Americans, History of Hispanic and Latino Americans, List of Hispanic and Latino Americans, and Portal:Hispanic and Latino Americans). (Full disclosure: I renamed or played a role in renaming these four.) SamEV (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2010 (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 all 3 into Category:Hispanic and Latino American culture as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging Category:Hispanic culture in the United States, Category:Hispanic American culture, and Category:Pacific Northwest Hispanic culture (has no article page, too narrow a focus) to Category:Hispanic and Latino American culture

Nominator's rationale: to match Hispanic and Latino Americans page, in conjunction with the nomination below. Mayumashu (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Per nominator's rationale. SamEV (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2010 (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 to Category:Hispanic and Latino American. — ξ^xplicit 19:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hispanic American to Category:Hispanic and Latino American topics

Nominator's rationale: to match Hispanic and Latino Americans article page Mayumashu (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Category:Hispanic and Latino American as the Cfd template indicates--IF renamng is needed at all. There is really no good reason to use 'topics' in a category name. It adds no value/meaning to the category name. Hmains (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Have now changed the template to match the proposal stated here. I don t think simply 'Hispanic and Latino American' alone makes sense - 'Hispanic and Latino American what?' Mayumashu (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per nominator's rationale. If not renaming to "Hispanic and Latino American topics", then to "Category:Hispanic and Latino Americans". SamEV (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• grudging support for Category:Hispanic and Latino American so it will be like Category:African American. Honestly, since Hispanic and Latino are synonyms, I think this whole part of the category tree should be one or the other. --evrik ^(talk) 15:18, 14 May 2010 (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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 16. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Colombian-American models to Category:American models of Latin American descent and merge present contents to Category:American people of Colombian descent

Nominator's rationale: this is too narrow a focus for the cat tree that is by nationality, by ethnic/prior national descent Mayumashu (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2010 (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 all as nominated, except that Category:Coastal settlements to Category:Populated coastal places. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Settlements to Category:Populated places

Category:Settlements by continent to Category:Populated places by continent

Category:Settlements by country to Category:Populated places by country

Category:Settlements by year of establishment to Category:Populated places by year of establishment

Category:Former settlements to Category:Former populated places

Category:Coastal settlements to Category:Coastal populated places (or Populated coastal places, per comments below)

Category:Former settlements by continent to Category:Former populated places by continent

Category:Settlements in North America to Category:Populated places in North America

Category:Settlements in Africa to Category:Populated places in Africa

Category:Settlements in Asia to Category:Populated places in Asia

Category:Settlements in Antarctica to Category:Populated places in Antarctica

Category:Settlements in Europe to Category:Populated places in Europe

Category:Settlements in Oceania to Category:Populated places in Oceania

Category:Settlements in South America to Category:Populated places in South America

Propose merging all Category:Cities, towns and villages in FOO to Category:Populated places in FOO

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There has been much discussion over what name should be used for this category. After a heated discussion it appears that a consensus exists for this rename. If this rename proposal receives consensus, then most but not all of the subcategories in the tree will need to be renamed. This should resolve the issue at nominations like this one. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per discussion. Maurreen (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Populated places, per consensus here, (if tagged) rename all subcats Category:Settlements in FOO to Category:Populated places in FOO, and merge all Category:Cities, towns and villages in FOO to Category:Populated places in FOO. ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 07:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename If this could settle a contentious issue that has been lingering, and flaring up repeatedly, for a long time, I'm all for it. I think the proposed name is quite acceptable, and I'm looking forward to see the International Space Station included in this scheme. __meco (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only if it is rewritten to use US English ;-) Vegaswikian (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question on subcategories. Someone added Category:Coastal settlements to Category:Coastal populated places. Shouldn't that be Category:Coastal settlements to Category:Populated coastal places?
• Rename per several protracted discussions. Category:Populated coastal places does sound better (cf 'large coastal towns' v 'coastal large towns'). Occuli (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements. - htonl (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per the extensive discussion referenced above. --RL0919 (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• rename is fine, but the current rename list is very much just a beginning. 'Settlements' is very much embedded throughout the category structure. Just for example, the above categories, such as Category:Settlements by country, have hundreds of subcats which have to be changed. Other cats with 'settlement' are harder to immediately find. After the nominated changes are made, can we send further cats to Vegaswikian for rename action? Hmains (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, send them to BHG. She likes the big nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that we should wait for this discussion to close; if it's closed as rename, then we can go down the category tree and nominate more of these. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per extensive previous discussion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 17, 2010; 19:40 (UTC)
• Keep unnecessarily verbose. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and merge all related categories per the previously-linked discussion. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 01:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Interesting consensus. I fully support the difficult efforts that resulted in this agreement, but it does remind me of the old camel-was-designed-by-a-committee joke. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming. And support Populated coastal places over Coastal populated places. SilkTork *^YES! 09:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Kudos to everyone on fine bit of advance consensus building. I prefer not to break up the phrase "Populated places," so I prefer "Coastal populated places" for the one in question. I might also argue for "Formerly populated places" over "Former populated places" for the two that follow that format.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No on "Formerly populated places."

For example, Warwick, Virginia, is a former city of southeast Virginia, until it was merged into Newport News, Virginia. A residental/ commercial area, Warwick is in no way what we would called a place that was formerly populated — the meaning of "formerly populated place"; Warwick is a former city, and thus a former place that was populated — the meaning of "former populated place". ^{şṗøʀĸɕäɾłäů∂ɛ:τᴀʟĸ} 06:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. Thanks for the clarification.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick, Virginia is a former municipality. Whether the category is named "former populated places" or "formerly populated places," it should only apply to places that have been abandoned, never to places that have merely lost their local government and separate official existence. postdlf (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, "settlement" is the best of a bad lot. It would exclude transient camps, which "populated places" doesn't. It implies a form of logical cohesion more strongly than "populated places". Europe, the world, the northern hemisphere, the tropics, the Pacific Ocean, Liverpool Harbour, the Amazon basin, at one point the Moon, would all qualify. Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 24 April 2010 (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: keep. — ξ^xplicit 22:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Independent Spirit Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - This is a general "lump-together" category that lumps all the winners of all the awards given by this group into one large category. We tend to create categories by awards, such as Category:Independent Spirit Award for Best Supporting Male, rather than shoving them into a general category. This is not a helpful or specific enough category. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add sub-categories, as needed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a parent category and create the sub-categories. Lugnuts (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – cf the example of Category:Academy Award winners. Occuli (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as container for the subcategories, but I would think that the subcategories should be deleted and listified. It's not that prominent an award. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:02, 25 April 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 22:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Turkmen people to Category:Turkmenistan people

Nominator's rationale: Rename/Split. Per discussion with Good Ol'Factory, full CFD opened. This heirarchy is for the people of the country of Turkmenistan, not the for Turkmen ethnic group, so should be renamed to another name, "Turkmenistan people" or "Turkmen (Turkmenistan) people", along with its subcategories. The article Turkmen is a dab page, while the article Turkmen people is not about the country, rather, it is about the ethnic group. Any ethnic group categories/articles need to be split off into a separate heirarchy, such as Category:Turkmen (ethnic) people. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Turkmenistan people. I support this change, as it seems to be necessary to resolve ambiguities. This will conform to the format of many other nationality categories that have had similar or other problems, such as Category:Dominica people, Category:Republic of the Congo people, Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina people, Category:Trinidad and Tobago people, etc. We could then have Category:Ethnic Turkmen people, with the nominated category being a disambiguation category. I'm willing to do a lot of the grunt work for this nomination and to divide the subcategories if this nomination is approved. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per convincing arguments above. Occuli (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2010 (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 as nominated. If the article ever gets moved back, the category of course could be re-nominated for naming back to the original name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Propositional logic to Category:Propositional calculus

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is the name of the underlying article. RichardVeryard (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match parent article. — ξ^xplicit 22:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Propositional logic is a perfectly reasonable name. The article itself would be better renamed to match this, instead of vice versa. No reason to rename this category. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The article was moved from Propositional logic to Propositional calculus in May 2006, and there have been many edits since which suggests a degree of consensus among editors for this name. --RichardVeryard (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And no one has bothered to request a page move since then? — ξ^xplicit 23:13, 30 April 2010 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Overseas Chinese writers to Category:Writers of Chinese descent
• Category:Overseas Chinese politicians to Category:Politicians of Chinese descent

Nominator's rationale: to follow the more standard naming pattern, Category:People of Chinese descent Mayumashu (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2010 (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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 16#Category:Asian American theatre directors. — ξ^xplicit 19:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Asian American theatre directors to Category:Directors of Asian American theater

Nominator's rationale: listed here, it seems, are directors of Asian American theater, and neither directors of any sort of American theater who are of Asian descent nor directors of any sort of theater who are U.S. citizens and of Asian descent. If, however, the view is that Asian American theater is just (any sort of) American theater involving people of Asian descent, and there is not an 'Asian American theater' as a unique sub-genre, then the rename should be Category:Directors of American theater of Asian descent (and the article page should be nominated for deletion). Mayumashu (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That needs to be assessed with regard to common-usage in the academic literature. If the sources generally refer both to those who make Asian-American theatre and those who make theatre and are of Asian descent as "Asian American theatre directors" then the category should be used to list both candidates, as it were. In my experience, that is precisely how it is used and the form ought to be retained here. I have yet to encounter the description "X is a director of American theatre of Asian descent", while I have often enountered "X is an Asian American theatre director." As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia reflects common use. Please note too that the "theatre" spelling is universal in the English language and not limited to a specfic region. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- surely nom distorts the purpose of the category. This is not about the type of theatre (or theater), but about the ehtnicity of the dorector. Or Rename Category:American theatre directors of Asian descent. (or have I got it titlally wrong). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2010 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Golf Wives and Girlfriends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of a non-defining characteristic. We don't categorize people by relationship status. — ξ^xplicit 00:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, this is OC, unnecessary Mayumashu (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In addition to overcategorization, the the category is trivial. The concept of "girlfriend" is impossible to define and golf is a game and cannot have either a wife or a girlfriend. It's a silly category and appears to have been made up solely to use with one person. --Crunch (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Would Tiger Woods' mistresses be included? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment But we DO categorize people by relationship status - See Category:Footballers' Wives and Girlfriends. Lugnuts (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not categorization by relationship status. That's categorization by a unique status bestowed on a select number of "WAG"s by British media. See WAGs. It's not quite the same thing as this category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "That's not categorization by relationship status." How is being a wife or girlfriend NOT a relationship status? Lugnuts (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is, but that's not what I disputed. I said it's not why we're categorizing them. As I said, we're categorizing them because of the media's bestowal of WAG status upon them. In other words, a person is not placed in Category:Footballers' Wives and Girlfriends just because they are the wife or girlfriend of a football player. They are placed in the category if the British media has heaped attention and thus notability upon them for being one of the WAGs, which is limited to a particular context which goes well beyond relationship status. See the recent discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is trivial and not defining for those included and it is not a media-bestowed status similar to the WAGs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WAGs exists as a term in the popular media in the UK in particular. That can't be said of Golf wives anywhere in the world, it just doesn't work. Szzuk (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. – only one member; too specialised. But as well as categories for Queens there are Category:Royal mistresses and Category:Royal lovers (like spouses, of both sexes). Perhaps a more general category for spouses/mistresses? Hugo999 (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Footballers' WAGs have in some cases made themsleves notable (or notorious). I doubt there are (or will ever be) enough articles on golfers' WAGs to make a wirhtwhile category. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2010 (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.