Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 11

< December 10	December 12 >

December 11

Category:Vigilante episodes

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't think "vigilante" is really recognized as a genre of television episode. Not every plot device or point should be categorized. If this isn't deleted then the name should be changed to "Vigilante television episodes". 76.201.154.20 (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or we'll have Category:Happy endings episodes, Category:The butler really did do it episodes, Category:Ironic twists of plot episodes, Category:The guys in the yellow shirts are killed off in Star Trek episodes, and God knows what else. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not definingly notable, and there's no Vigilante (TV show) either. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The category cites a list, which is as far as compiling information on this ought to go. This is not a TV series, but a plot twist, which may or may not be significant. Some years ago, many articles had a "trivia" or "popular culture" section, in editors collected literary, film, TV, etc allusions to the subject. These were deleted wholesale, as a result of a high level WP decision. Even the list tends towards that excluded trend; a category is even worse. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:45, 12 December 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.

Category:British politicians of Jewish descent

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; contents to be upmerged to Category:British people of Jewish descent. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: On top of being a never-ending source of conflict, and having a definition ("British Jews who are active in politics") that is different from the actual Category ("British politicians of Jewish descent"), this is a classic example of Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable intersection. I'm also puzzled by an assertion that someone who has been dead for 130 years can be 'active in politics'! AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see deletion of Category:British Mixed-Race actors/actresses --Northernhenge (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – intersection of unrelated traits. Occuli (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are categories for Category:Black British politicians and for Category:British politicians of South Asian descent why cant there not be ones for Jews as a large number of important british politicians are also of Jewish ethnicity. Eopsid (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't in itself a reason to create the category. Can you provide sources which state that there is anything notable in general about a British politician being of Jewish descent? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources saying the other categories are notable? Also there a notable enough to have an article. List of British Jewish politicians Eopsid (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'List' is also tagged as needing evidence for notability. And you haven't answered the question - can you provide sources which state that there is anything notable in general about a British politician being of Jewish descent? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish Canadian politicians and Category:Jewish American politicians exist so why shouldnt a similiar one for British Politicians exist. Also here is a source of sorts which I think shows this is notable unsure of it's reliability though [1].

Yes, we know that the Jewish Chronicle likes to draw its readers attention to who is Jewish - but that is hardly evidence that the subject is considered notable by anyone else - and the JC makes no assertions of notability anyway. Also please stop referring to other categories. They are not valid arguments for anything - each category must be justified on its own merits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the definition has now been changed to a more suitable one originally it was the same as in the Category:British politicians of South Asian descent but with South Asian changed with Jewish in order to attempt to be consistent. I have also added more examples to the category most of whom are contemperary politicians. Eopsid (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; unnecessary religion category. Does the religion of (some of) one's ancestors really matter? If so, we ought to start categories for nearly all the people in the Americas with Native bloodlines to such categories as Category:Mexican politicians of Aztec religion descent, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You trivialise the issue. As far as I understand it the Aztecs were significnat nearly 500 years ago, prior the Conquisadors. Coming from a community speaking one of the two dozen or so native languages of Mexico (rather than from the Spanish-speaking majority) might well be a significant characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Jewish descent is quite as significant as South Asian descent or being Black. I would suggest that the definition should exclude those not of Jewish religion, who merely may happen to have one Jewish ancestor several generations back, which would be a NN characterisitic. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to make religion part of the criteria, the category becomes even more problematic: see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Religion in particular. We can only include living people in a religion-based category if (a) it is relevant to their notability, and (b) they have "publicly self-identified with the belief... in question". AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:British people of Jewish descent. I think that people by descent, unlike by ethnicity, should not be sub-divided by occupation, as there is not a necessarily notable connection between the two. So long as we categorize occupation by nationality however, we should continue to do so too for ethnicity (as nationality and ethnicity are the same sort of thing, the former being a sub-set of the later) Mayumashu (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nonnotable intersection? A glance at the History of the Jews in England shows that this is a nation that had expelled Jews, had laws that restricted Jews from political office and had not allowed Jews to serve as MPs until 1858, when laws requiring those serving to be Christians were eliminated. This is a country where Jewish politicians are constatntly noted as such and where there is an unfortunate level of public anti-Semitism that focuses on the religious background of politicians. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per the nom. - Wikipedia:Overcategorization - I disagree with Alansohn completely. There is more interest on Wikipedia about the ethnic backgrounds of politicians than there is in real life. Youreallycan (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Mayumashu. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mixing "descent" (especially here where it means not of that religion or ethnicity) and politicians is clearly a non-notable intersect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 19 December 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.

Category:Theatre companies established in 1980

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:Organizations established in 1980. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This was listed as a C1 speedy, but it was not empty. It only has one article and this is the only 'established in' for theater companies. I'm bringing this here to see if we want to delete or to see if there is consensus to allow this to develop as a new series category tree. I am open to either option, so count me as neutral at this point. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Theatre companies or an appropriate sub-cat. This is the only "dated" theatre company. I do not think we need yet another tree full of red-linked empty potential categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Organizations established in 1980. Tim! (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support this. I think it makes the most sense out of the options mentioned. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:53, 19 December 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.

Category:Gubkinsky (town)

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&delete Category:Labytnangi and Category:Gubkinsky (town); No consensus Category:Noyabrsk and Category:Salekhard. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't need a separate category for a small town with stub-long article. Darwinek (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a small oil-town, probably in Siberia. Until there is a list in the article of things that might be categorised, it should not be allowed, but without prejudice to re-creation, if that is justified. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Cities and towns in Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug - and also upmerge to the same target Category:Labytnangi, Category:Noyabrsk, and Category:Salekhard. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion of Noyabrsk and Salekhard cats; support deletion of Gubkinsky and Labytnangi cats. Two articles is all that's needed to substantiate having a category, and both Noyabrsk and Salekhard qualify. They also have potential for further growth, so it's not like they'll have only two entries forever.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 13, 2011; 19:45 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. Too small to have their own categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Noyabrsk and Category:Salekhard. I added two articles to the latter category, which now has three articles (and four counting one article in a subcategory). I also suggest upmerging (and deleting) Category:Economy of Salekhard and Category:Companies based in Salekhard into the parent category Category:Salekhard. Delete and upmerge Category:Labytnangi and Category:Gubkinsky (town). Ruslik_Zero 19:14, 27 December 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.

Category:People from Tiruchirapalli

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. In future, please don't empty categories out of process. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Tiruchirappalli is the official name of the city and all the pages in this category have been moved to Category:People from Tiruchirappalli. Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 05:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete C1. (It could have been renamed under C2A provided the difference in spelling is uncontroversial.) --Northernhenge (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snow delete. Per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:00, 16 December 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.

Category:Screenplays by Anoop Menon

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Anoop Menon is not an established screen writer. He is notable as an actor and is established as one. Why should we have a category on a person who have written only 4 screen plays yet? This is against the very rationale of having categories. If there should be a category in Anoop Menon's name, it should be 'Films starred by Anoop Menon' or the like. I did not mean to say that we should create such a category, but a screenplays category for anoop menon is unreasonable. This again does not question the quality of Anoop Menon's screenplays. They may be good. But 4 screen plays by a person established so far only as an actor, does not warrant an exclusive category. We could have a list if other editors feel so. A request to the potential participants: This obviously was the handiwork of a die hard fan of the actor. For those who know about Malayalam film an explanation wont be required for this proposal. It would be more beneficial if we hear from wikipedians who know about Malayalam film. To comment on this based on technical grounds is easy. But it may affect the credibility of Wikipedia. Austria156 (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As part of the bigger scheme of Category:Screenplays by author. This is a defining attribute to the film. Is five films OK to categorize and not four? If so, why? The H.G. Wells category only has two entries. Lugnuts (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I fail in Wikipedia. To convince people who know nothing of the context. No comparison between H. G. Wells and Anoop Menon. People will be interested in knowing how many film H. G. Wells have written screenplays for. It is difficult to convince. As I said in the nomination, participation from wikipedians who are informed on Malayalam film would give us a better result. Austria156 (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Yes, we should have a category on a person who has only written four screenplays. We could, if needed, have a category on a person who has written one screenplay. In cases of established category trees, such as the ones at Category:Screenplays by author or Category:Aircraft by manufacturer to use a relevant and generic example, respectively, one-item cats are acceptable because they're required as part of the tree, and WP:SMALLCAT has an exemption for these. And I might note that Category:Screenplays by Frank Miller only has four entries, but I don't see calls for it to be deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 12 December 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.

Category:Mexican NASCAR Nationwide Series drivers

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. No other nation, or U.S. state, has a "Fooian NASCAR Nationwide Series drivers" category; in fact, there is also no Category:NASCAR Nationwide Series drivers (it being simply part of Category:NASCAR drivers). All contents are already part of both the NASCAR drivers and Mexican drivers cats. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 11 December 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.