Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 19

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: Discussion is on the 16th. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am for deleting this page, we have Categories for People from the Netherlands of Surinamese decent, People from the Netherlands of Antillean decent, and so forth, I don't feel like a category called Black Dutch people, is a good choice, to separate people based on their race, is not how it should be done in my humble opinion. It is not done on the Dutch Wikipedia site, and I don't think it needs to be done on the English one either.

• Comment - this is already under discussion at the cfd of August 16. Oculi (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2012 (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: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting after recommendation for renaming (as Category:People from Upper East Side) decided.

Nominator's rationale: The category is vague, ill-thought out, useless and potentially unlimited. Quis separabit? 19:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: As the renaming proposal has been withdrawn, I've modified the above to reflect the category in question. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:People from Manhattan - WP:OC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per The Bushranger...William 20:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It makes no sense to delete the category. The category is equal to those within the Category:People by New York City neighborhood. Or someone will say that Category:People from Lower East Side, Category:People from Red Hook, Brooklyn or Category:People from Corona, Queens (or any one of Category:People by New York City neighborhood) is more vague or useless, or less vague or useless that the category in question? GermanUser2045 (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the possible exception of Greenwich Village? Yes, all those should be merged as overcategorisation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A rather specific and defined neighborhood of New York City's borough of Manhattan, for which entries can be and are confirmed with reliable and verifiable sources. It's hard to see how this is vague, ill-thought out or useless, and I'm baffled as to how the category could be unlimited, potentially or otherwise. Alansohn (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a distinct area and clearly both larger and more distinctive than many of the places we have categories for people being from.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Indian politicians accused of crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:BLPCAT as the aim is to categorize living people accused of crimes, not those actually convicted. Probably needs a snow/speedy delete, but there's way too many articles added in from the past week. —SpacemanSpiff 14:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Per WP:BLPCAT, categories relating to crimes should be created only where the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLPCAT. A blogger I know once wrote the average US citizen breaks on average a couple of laws daily. We're all criminals then, but only if we are eventually found guilty of breaking the law....William 18:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dear all, whilst I agree with WP:BLPCAT, I must draw your attention towards the facts that a) The CAT spells that the politicians are accused and does not state that they are criminals. b) In the individual articles, incident are published & backed by reliable third-party sources. Please consider. Cheers AKS 20:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – being accused of a crime is definitely not defining. There is a good reason why there is no Category:Politicians accused of crimes. Oculi (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Undefining, against WP:BLPCAT, also high potential of BLP issues here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - major BLP hazard - get rid. GiantSnowman 09:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear breach of BLPCAT. Formerip (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete accusation categories as a matter of course. Mangoe (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Why delete: Everyone, if the category is a BLP violation and if we cannot talk about accusation on Wikipedia, then someone, anyone please enlighten me on this article, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc. Cheers AKS 19:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles can have statements reliably sourced. Categories say "X is a Y". And being accused is not defining. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for so many BLP reasons. I am not the least bit moved by the cat creator's WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:59, 23 August 2012 (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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Veterinary schools in Indonesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_schools_of_veterinary_medicine#Schools_of_veterinary_medicine_in_Indonesia - expandable, deleting means that it will need re - creating again down the line. SatuSuro 04:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – not a defining characteristic of Gadjah Mada University; we can't categorise a university by every department. If there was even a paragraph about the vet school, there could be a redirect. Oculi (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are 9 such schools. Whether or not the articles yet exist, each is notable enough to merit an article, and thus we should have the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 'Veterinary schools by country' is a valid tree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 27 August 2012 (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 for now, without prejudice to a group nomination of similar categories. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Mandalay Region to Category:Universities and colleges in the Mandalay Region

Nominator's rationale: grammar. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All the relevant subcategories of Category:Mandalay Region use the current form. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - regardless of the above being true, they all should use "the". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is not about a hazily defined region near Mandalay, but about a governmental area called a region. It is "Mandalay Region" not "the Mandalay region". The nom is the equivalent of asking for a rename to ... "in the New York State" rather than in "in New York State". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep whether it should be called "Madalay Region" or "the Mandalay Region", the nomination should include all categories that would be effected not just this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2012 (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.