Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 26

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 both to Category:Compressed air power. — ξ^xplicit 06:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Compressed air to something

Propose renaming Category:Compressed air vehicles to something

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The contents are about using compressed air as an energy source, mostly for powering vehicles. So the first question is do we need to keep this category? And the second is if kept, what name do we use. Category:Compressed air should be reserved for the broader topic described in compressed air which may well wind up being a dab category. I have added the child category so that if we rename the parent we can consider changing the name of the subcategory if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the vehicle category, it may be of interest to note this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for flagging this. Perhaps for now (and maybe forever) merging to a renamed Category:Compressed air power would be enough for the main articles Compressed-air vehicle and Compressed air car, as well as the articles on vehicles and manufacturers, to avoid another Mac/Nopetro WP:SMALLCAT situation. I do think it's worthwhile to add "power" to the category for a little more clarity, especially if it's to serve as a catch all for vehicles and vehicle builders. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Category:Compressed air power. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 2 August 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. — ξ^xplicit 06:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Environmental politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per the main article, Environmental politics is an academic field of study. Nothing in this category matches that definition. Being a Nopetro category, I suspect that it would be better to delete and allow someone to recreate something in this area with a more precise name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 07:55, 29 July 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: no consensus. The renomination proposed by Vegaswikian may be done at any time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Solid fuels to Category:Fuels

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is another one of the Mac categories that you need to think about. Most of the articles here are already in Category:Fuels. Note that coal is also a fossil fuel which is probably where most would think of it belonging. I have to wonder if this is a POV fork to counter Category:Liquid fuels. The contents really break down into two materials, wood and coal. Everything else is a modified form of these. If nothing else, we need to discuss what is best here. Of course we could take the recommend action by many for this class of category and simply delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are more solid fuels than wood and coal. e.g. peat or solid waste used for power or heat production. Also, not all biomass used as fuel is not wood origin, e.g. straw. Beagel (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if a fuel article is absent from the liquid fuels sub-category it may be presumed to be solid. There is no need to create a counterpoint category for every conceivable permutation of a theme. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the fuel is not liquid, it does not necessarily is solid. We have also gaseous fuels. Beagel (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and populate It has a main article and necessary other articles. No POV here. Solid fuel has been around a long time. The idea is not new or strange. It needs further population, however to include the fuels used in 'solid fuel rockets' or 'solid fuel booster rockets', which certainly must be something other than wood or coal! Lots of chemicals are solids, they burn and are fuel in some cases. Hmains (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some population work Hmains (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Biomass (wood, etc) and coal are two types of solid fuels, but in rocketry, there are many different types of solid fuel, though I doubt that the intention of the creator was to categorize solid rocket propellants. And the fact that garbage incinerators run off solid garbage means that just about anything will fit into this category... 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is nothing wrong with keeping a separate categorization system of fuels based on their state. Beagel (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the problem here is that going in and based on how the category was being used, the meaning of fuel was clear. The comments now show that there is a wider range of fuels. So while wood and solid rocket fuel are both solid, I'm not convinced that they belong in one category. So maybe this is now at the point where it may be better to reorganize this as a parent category with limited subcategories. That probably needs another discussion. So maybe a relisting for the purpose of discussing how to organize this? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 2 August 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: Withdrawn. WCityMike 16:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels by David Marusek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:OC#SMALL. WCityMike 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. WCityMike 16:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as part of the established structure Category:Science fiction novels by author which under OC#SMALL allows for otherwise deletable small categories. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per bovine query above. Occuli (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a defining attribute and of the larger scheme novels by author. Also compare Category:Novels by Harper Lee. Lugnuts (talk) 06:34, 27 July 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: No consensus. There was no follow-up discussion on relisting. I suggest a renomination to help focus conversation and encourage new participants. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Decommissioned nuclear power stations in the United States to Category:Former nuclear power stations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Well, there is probably some difference between decommissioned and former. But does having this category with it's one parent really help navigation? If someone wants to propose the reverse merge that could also be an option. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Following on from my comment immediately above, I think a lot of confusion would arise if this change were made. Johnfos (talk) 08:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Discussion/Questions - Well, I just took a good look thru the super-cat, Category:Nuclear power stations, and it turns out that we have a whole variety of sub-cats for "formerly-operating" nuclear power stations. Adding the 2 US sub-cats to the 2 other similar sub-cats I found in Category:Nuclear power stations by status gives us a grand total of 4 such sub-cats:

1. Category:Nuclear power stations with closed reactors
2. Category:Nuclear power stations with mothballed reactors
3. Category:Former nuclear power stations in the United States
4. Category:Decommissioned nuclear power stations in the United States.

Now I am quite familiar with the term "Decommissioned nuclear power plant", which is I believe the standard term for such things here in the States. But I'm not sure the other terms are well-defined:

• Question 1: What is meant by the term "Former nuclear power station"? Is it possible to be a "Former nuclear power station" without being, in fact, a "Decommissioned nuclear power station"? [Addendum: It occurs to me that there is in fact a significant period of time involved in the process of decommissioning a nuclear plant. So a power station could be "turned off" and no longer generating electricity for a number of years before it is fully decommissioned.]
• Question 2: What is meant by the term "mothballed reactor"? Is this the same as or different from being "Decommissioned"?
• Question 3: What is meant by the term "closed reactor"? How is this different from either "mothballed" or "Decommissioned"?
• Question 4: Are Cats 1 & 2 being used for power stations that are now closed -- or for multi-reactor power stations that are still operating, but with one or more reactors closed? (Or perhaps for both?)

It seems to me we that need to agree on consistent and clearly-defined terms for all of these categories. Cgingold (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There are a tremendous number of closed or cancelled plants and this is leading to some confusion. My initial thought is that when we consider nuclear power stations, it is useful to distinguish between:

• those which were proposed but no construction was ever started.
• those which were proposed and partially completed.
• those which were completed but were never commercially operated.
• completed power stations still in operation.
• completed power stations which operated but have been closed.
• proposed nuclear power stations, which may or may not operate in the future.

Hope this breakdown may provide some sort of guidance. Johnfos (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you look at Category:Power stations by condition it only covers two types past operating which is not included. That raises a question of should that simply be upmerged, which is where I'm leaning since condition is ambiguous especially in this context, or expanded. If a class of plants is not defined at this top level, maybe we don't need it. Mothballed is a class that I don't think is covered in your definitions. It is a plant that was in operation, but currently is not and is being maintained so that it can be restarted. Mohave Power Station was in this status for a while, albeit not made clear in the article. So I guess the question is can be use a small subset to classify these or do we need very detailed categories to cover every difference no matter how minor? I would like to see fewer categories and would like to avoid classifications that only apply to one type of plant when ever possible. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wisely or not (likely not) I started a separate CfD for just the closed/mothballed issue here. I may withdraw it especially in light of Vegaswikian's recent explanation of the term mothballed, taken to mean put in storage but possibly reopened later. Makes sense, I guess: mothballs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just withdrew the other CfD. Unhelpful to have two and I just didn't understand "mothballed." If retained, it obviously needs a description. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As another complication, mothballed can also be used to mean partially built and awaiting completion. Out here this applies to other buildings like hospitals where they build extra floors in the main construction but other then the outside shell and floors, they don't do any interior work. This allows them to later finish a floor or part of a floor as growth in demand creates a need for more space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 21:29, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Try not to get too distracted by mothballed reactors, as this is a very small part of what is happening. I suggest categorising by what is going on with the overall plant rather than individual reactors. Is the plant currently operating? Or has it been cancelled before construction was started? Has it been closed? These are central questions. Johnfos (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the simple questions might be built or not built and operable. The question becomes what categories should be used to cover this. Let's not get into a rail station discussion of disused, former, defunct or a few other terms. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note Relisted to generate discussion towards a concrete proposal. Courcelles (talk) 20:51, 26 July 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. I've moved the list of entries to User:Courcelles/Under to facilitate listifying. Whoever is interested in doing that work, please feel free to take the list and work on it from there. Courcelles (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Underutilized crops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Retained as a no consensus keep in 2006, this category remains a case of WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, I would argue. Its main article Underutilized crop is still little better than an unreferenced stub. It may pass muster as a list but to quote the guideline, "Adjectives which imply a subjective inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This seems to be a designation that is advanced by the International Centre for Underutilized Crops. I wouldn't be surprised if that organization is partially funded by farmers or sellers of these particular crops. There's nothing inherent about a crop that makes it "underutilized", and although a crop may be deemed "underutilized" on a global scale, it may not be underutilized in one or more particular locations, regions, or countries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk)

• That is simply not true. The International Centre for Underutilised Crops was founded in 1989, but the term clearly predates that year. In fact, this is a typical NGO that's just trying to help people not starve to death. Abductive (reasoning) 07:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but where does it get its money (wink)? There's almost always a money angle, even with do-gooders. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Typically the potential of these crops is underappreciated even by the people that grow and sell them. These farmers are mostly illiterate peasants, not sophisticated marketeers. The only people who talk about underutilized crops are agricultural scientists such as Norman Borlaug. Abductive (reasoning) 23:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Which again raises the issue of whether this designation is really that defining for the crops involved. If no one really talks about these except a few agricultural scientists, it seems to be something that WP should address in a list or an article rather than categorization, which is meant to capture defining qualities. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how to convey just how important this topic is, but please let me assure you that is is very important. Basically, there are over-utilized crops such as cotton. Then there are crops which are getting the right amount of attention, such as apples, and then there are crops that should be getting more attention from scientists, breeders, farmers and consumers. Just try typing in the word "underutilized" into Google Books, and the first thing that comes up are books on underutilized crops. Abductive (reasoning) 02:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The focus of the objections seems to be that, because "underutilized" could be used subjectively, that must necessarily mean that it's being used subjectively here. Even a cursory review of the organizations that focus on this topic shows that this is not the case. The designation is a well established one, particularly in NGO's focused on agricultural efforts to alleviate poverty (some of which are listed in the lead article). At least two UN agencies have underutilized crops as a central focus. I agree that the main article is underwhelming. I'd be willing to spend some time and effort filling it in a bit. Waitak (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Waitak (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In spite of the nominator's claim, it is straightforward to ascertain if a crop is considered underutilized. The topic is well studied; Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. If the nominator could provide some members of the category that are not supposed to be there it would be quite surprising. Abductive (reasoning) 07:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, right off the top, Black-eyed pea and Rutabaga both give the impression of being widely cultivated and I don't see any WP:RS in the article suggesting that they can be defined as "under-utilized." Did I miss something? While Sorghum might have other uses as a fuel feed stock, its article says it's one of the most important cereal crops in the world. Jerusalem artichoke is described in its lede as "cultivated widely across the temperate zone." In 2007, the world produced 1,875,018 metric tons of Flax. Perennial sunflower indulges in unsourced WP:CRYSTAL claims for its great untapped potential, but the article still points out that "Globally, sunflowers are the fourth most important oil crop." This is just a sampling. Are you surprised yet? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really. For example, the introductory chapter of the book Biology and Chemistry of Jeruslaem Artichoke is entitled "An Underutilized Resource". A scientific article Black-Eyed Peas Go to Mars? discusses how black-eyed peas are underutilized (details). Sorghum "probably has more underdeveloped and underutilized genetic potential than any other major food crop." I'm sure the other crops also have such sources. The thing to understand from an agricultural scientist's point of view is that extent of cultivation is not the sole metric of deciding that a crop is underutilized. One also must consider its potential. Abductive (reasoning) 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a very interesting discussion. At this point, what I would like to know (coming full circle) is whether these assessments are considered "objective", i.e. are they widely/generally accepted and not contested? Or are they merely the views of one or more individuals that aren't necessarily widely accepted? Cgingold (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not certain that every member of the category is uncontested, but there are bound to be some that are backed up by reliable secondary sources. That should be enough to keep this category. Abductive (reasoning) 23:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the previous discussion which closed as no consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/question. I had a random look at 10 of the articles in the category, and not a single one mentioned that the crop was classified as an "underutilized crop". This seems like a perfect example of something that could be categorized but should not be—not only is the main article anemic and unreferenced, so too apparently are most of the articles' inclusion in the category. If these uncited inclusions are removed by me from the category, what will happen? Will other users try to put the articles back in the category when the inclusion is unreferenced? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be inclined to find some sources before undoing your edits. Abductive (reasoning) 07:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and maybe listify. Underutilized by what definition? Is this only for one application like fuel production? Is this a worldwide prospective or a position in a single country. Is it underutilized in every country? With a list you can explain some of this. I do believe that cotton is an underutilized crop in the US Southwest. But that is because we don't have the water needed to cultivate it. I see that cannabis is in the category so that says that even with laws controlling its use so that it can not be sold or grown in many areas it is still underutilized? Can anyone explain why opium poppy is not here? Clearly we could be planting and harvesting more of this vital crop. So saying something is underutilized without explaining why is also problematic. I think all of this has the effect of making inclusion somewhat subjective. Just reading the intro for the main article you have Neglected and underutilized crops are plant species that are used traditionally for their food, fibre, fodder, oil or medicinal properties, but have yet to be adopted by large-scale agriculturalists. They may have the potential to contribute to food security, nutrition, health, income generation and environmental services. For a variety of reasons, some economic and some cultural, they have been neglected or underutilized. I think the key phrase there could be yet to be adopted by large-scale agriculturalists. Nothing says that it is even possible to make better use of the crop. If you can't make better use of the crop then how is it utilized? What about plants that due to the habitat can't be grown on a large scale? Yea, they are underutilized, but they really can't be utilized any more. So this category really serves little purpose without an extensive explanation. It has already been pointed out that the articles lack the extensive and detailed explanations that would allow there inclusion here. Another issue, which category should be smaller? This one or Category:Overutilized crops? So are we really attempting to classify by including most plants? In the end this category casues more problems then it can possibally solve. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your question "Is this a worldwide prospective or a position in a single country?" brings to mind something I asked myself when I came across this interview with a principal scientist at the Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture in India. In "Commercialization of underutilized fruits" we find a list of underutilized fruits in the world's second most populous nation. But are we to add Avocado to this category on that basis? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very persuasive commentary, VW - the phrase tour de force comes to mind... I'm ready to say Delete and listify. Cgingold (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify per above discussion. Beagel (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note Relisted from 13 July. Courcelles (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and perhaps make a list per Vegaswagon. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:40, 27 July 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New York City Ballet repertory by season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: These categories seem way too excessive, especially since popular ballets could easily be in 100s of categories if one started listing other years and other companies. They also are already all listed on list pages anyway, such as List of New York City Ballet 2008 Spring repertory. Thus I propose they all be deleted. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion - I could not agree more, these are really excessive and should perhaps be converted to a multi-part List article. However, it looks like none of the sub-categories have been properly tagged as yet, and they should be included in this CFD for deletion along with the parent cat. Cgingold (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion - Four Bagatelles is in 4 or 5 of these and not one is IMO defining. Occuli (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am the poor fool who created these categories and have no objection to their being deleted — provided that one of the Wikipedia editors who supports doing so is prepared to convert them into the suggested multi-part list article. Ben Lyon covered the waterfront; I cover City Ballet and keeping up with their ever-expanding repertory takes all the time I can devote to Wiki. As to a ballet showing up in 100s of categories, that might happen for a half dozen ballets — if there were fifty or a hundred editors writing about ballet (which is not the case). — Robert Greer (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion – The categories within Category:New York City Ballet repertory by season (i.e., Category:New York City Ballet 2008 Spring repertory through Category:New York City Ballet 2010 Winter repertory) are scarcely frivolous. Each provides a direct list of the ballets performed during a given season by NYCB without further maintenance — and consequent opportunity for error. As nobody is putting their hand up when asked who wants to convert these categories into an article (or series of articles) containing the same information in list form, I think this category (and its contents) should remain unperturbed unless and until some kind soul does so. (Strikethrough added to avoid giving the appearance of voting twice.) — Robert Greer (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Robertgreer makes a very good point. These categories do appear to serve a purpose and it seems to me, that deleting them only to create a series of new list articles with the same information would be creating work unnecessarily. Crazy-dancing (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lists already seem to be there, as I noted. I'm not sure what else would need to be done. But how do they serve ANY purpose? The argument that "noone else is working on it" is invalid, as that doesn't take away from the fact that these categories are specific to a single company (of which there are many), and beyond that are tagged for each year (look at, say, video games which often have multiple releases across different years, yet they only have one year category). And really, to restate it differently, why should the NYC Ballet be special enough to warrant these? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, if all you are going to do is swoop in and comment negatively in response to anyway who opposes the deletion, what is the point of this? It seems to be me you are determined to 'get rid' of these categories and will stamp all over any opposing point of view. I oppose the deletion, because of the prestige of the ballet company concerned and because I think this is a helpful way of breaking up what is a very extensive repertoire. Crazy-dancing (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To 'anyone'? Two people have opposed and I made one comment about one of them (though granted referenced the other one). My main reason for commenting was that you didn't clarify what was meant by "do appear to serve a purpose". (And incidently, I apologize for not actually tagging the subcats, but I can't figure out how to get their pages to link to this one now that it's three days later) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can show you how to tag those sub-categories, Melodia. As for Crazy-dancing's remarks, s/he is way out of line to reproach you for engaging in debate and defending your position. That is exactly the sort of thing that goes on here at CFD, day in and day out. It tells me that s/he must be completely unfamiliar with this process -- and with the sorts of issues that need to be considered when it comes to evaluating a category or set of categories. Cgingold (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I don't know who you think you are to accuse me of being 'way out of line'. I simply added my name as opposing the delete and don't appreciate it when someone seems to pounce on me for doing so, with a comment that I perceive to be quite rude. There is defending your own position and then there is attacking someone elses, so I am perfectly entitled to respond without being accused of being 'out of line'. So if you would like to step off the soap box your majesty... Crazy-dancing (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<Methinks he doth protest too much> Your remarks went well beyond merely responding: "if all you are going to do is swoop in and comment negatively" and "will stamp all over any opposing point of view" are both uncalled for and, yes -- browbeating like that is out of line. You might want to apologize and retract those remarks so we can all move on. Cgingold (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I hope done right. Incidentally, I think the fact that every single of of these except the last two being valid links without the 'category; marker may speak for itself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you're referring to the List articles that that correspond to the categories? Btw, there's one slight detail you overlooked: before stating your rationale you should specify what you're proposing -- in this case, deletion -- as CFDs are also used for merging and renaming categories. Cgingold (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps as a compromise, condense the categories into years rather than seasons???? Crazy-dancing (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all of the articles are already listed in Category:New York City Ballet repertory, which is as far as it should go. It's possible that somebody might even challenge that category, but my sense is that it would probably survive such a challenge, given the NYCB's status as a premiere ballet company. Cgingold (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, well, I hate to go afoul of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS] but for example, looking at operas, there's nothing like these categories, even the rep on popular operas like La Traviata or Carmen, for instance. Though taking a look at the ballet articles as a whole they seem (and I apologize for using the term, but it fit) like one big ball of cruft as a whole. Where other projects have taken great pains to condense topics into more broad singular ones and only keep truly notable individual articles, the ballet articles just seem to keep bloating. I mean, just look at pages like Swan Lake (Martins) or Barber Violin Concerto (ballet) or Valse Triste (ballet). Yes, I know that 'there's no hurry' and so forth, and perhaps they can be expanded into articles that actually are useful, but for now they all seem somewhat indiscriminate. Forgive the side rant here, and I mean no animosity toward the large amount of work that Robert Greer and others are doing, but I just can't help but wonder, if ballets were a popular topic (like say video games or TV shows) if the number of pages would be far smaller (and ballet being an 'art' has nothing to do with it either, before anyone tries to throw the highbrow card). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you do have to question the notability of the individual ballet productions. For example, I could similarly create a mound of articles listing every production ever performed by the Royal Ballet, but I choose to discriminate based on how 'popular' a production has been. Looking at some of the productions listed in these categories, I have to admit there are a number of them that are not notable (in my opinion). Yes, they are performed by a notable company and may be by notable choreographers, but are the ballets themselves notable? Does a one-off pas de deux created for 10 nights of a touring season really fit alongside a production of the Nutcracker that has been licensed to ballet companies around the world for example? Just trying to look at things differently... I guess if I was to create a category for the Royal Ballet's repertory, I wouldn't necessarily create articles about every ballet, I would concentrate on the ones that are particularly well known or are identified as being one of the companies 'signature' ballets, such as Ashton's Ondine or MacMillan's Manon or Mayerling???? Crazy-dancing (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to whether these categories serve any purpose, should someone want to know which ballets were danced by New York City Ballet in a given season, this is where they can find the information without further ado (nor is this information available from the City Ballet website.)

Without these categories they would have to copy and paste the underlying data from the relevant NYCB list of that season's repertory into Google docs. or Excel, sort by column, eliminate duplicate titles and the names of dancers in principal rôles.

This is also the work necessary to create self-standing lists to replace said categories, and my implicit offer to support deletion of these categories still stands, provided one of the three of you who proposes deletion; Melodia Chaconne, Cgingold, Occuli; volunteers to do the work (i.e. you break it, you bought it!)

For my part, I have to enter the casting for NYCB 2010 Spring repertory and the second week of NYCB 2010 Summer Saratoga Springs repertory, both repertory and casting, as well as the just-announced repertory for their 2011 Winter repertory and 2011 Spring repertory (it might be worth noting that NYCB is the largest ballet company in the US and dances the largest rep. of any company in the world.) — Robert Greer (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what "you can't find it elsewhere" has to do with appropriateness on WP. In fact, that should be an agument against it. And why are the lists that already exist not sufficient? What new lists would have to be created? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it inappropriate that Wikipedia have a list of the ballets danced in a given season by the largest ballet company in the United States? Is it inappropriate that Wikipedia have a list of the ballets danced in a given season by the ballet company with the largest repertory in the world?

The lists that exist (which have long since been ruled worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia) are chronological, day by day, week by week, season by season, year by year, with principal casting including literally last-minute changes (I attend fairly often, and my friends SMS me of cast changes announced on the bulletin board in the lobby or by slips of paper in the program or on the house speaker just before the curtain goes up.)

Someone consulting Wikipedia for an answer to the simple question, "What ballets did City Ballet dance in the Winter of 2009?", would not find the answer without the presence of Category:New York City Ballet 2009 Winter repertory.

Unless, that is, that you are volunteering to construct such a series of lists to replace the categories you propose deleting.

To argue (1) that "you can't find it elsewhere" has nothing "to do with appropriateness on WP" and then claim (2) that "that [it] should be an agument [sic] against it" is utterly illogical; it also gets the matter backwards.

Information that is available on other websites is that which needs to justify its presence on Wikipedia (far too many Wiki articles are copy-and-paste jobs from other websites — perish forbid that somebody should set foot in a library or make use of some other print source! — re-written just enough to avoid being tagged as obvious copyright violations.)

Information that is not available online is, unless proven otherwise, more valuable by virtue of its scarcity if nought else. And the question, "What ballets did NYCB dance in the Winter of 2009?", is as basic to ballet as, "Which teams played in the 2009 World Series?", is to baseball. — Robert Greer (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, New York Yankees doesn't have a category for every year they were in the World Series. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do they need one, as they defeat the same AL teams every year; NYCB has over four hundred ballets in their rep. and obviously do not dance every ballet every year — or even every decade.

The reason that Wikipedia has guidelines rather than rules (other than that thou shalt not infringe thine neighbour's copyright) is that the structure of a set of related entries and their related categories needs to be determined by the content rather than fit into a Procrustrean bed of rules. — Robert Greer (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, you are -- understandably -- focused on the very particular subject that you care so much about, to the exclusion of other concerns. The functionality of the Category system, on the other hand, is much bigger than any individual subject or editor -- and that requires a larger, higher-order perspective. You deserve a thorough explanation of the problem, so please see my response to DGG below, which I hope will at least help you to understand the crux of the issue.Cgingold (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all Both lists and categories as navigational devices are good, if someone is willing to maintain them and if there is sufficient material to be worth the trouble. It's clear that there is sufficient material. Rather than thinking this section of the encyclopedia "cruft", I think its a model of the detail we ought to have--and perhaps the categories are also. I don;t think it's disproportionate, and I can not really see the point of the objection. The temptation to reduce the coverage of what does not interest you as an individual is something that needs to be fought against, or we'd have very little left. There's about half of Wikipedia that I would never see the occasion to consult,and I deal with what seems to be the enormous excess there by not consulting it, so it doesn't actually bother me as a reader, and when I cannot help encountering it as an admin I just assume that other people's concerns are (almost) as valuable as my own. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice to see you back at CFD, DGG (even if we disagree on this one -- though I think you may change your mind). My objections to this set of categories have nothing at all to do with any supposed lack of interest (much less antipathy) in/for the subject -- and everything to do with proper use of Wikipedia's category system. These categories are a variety of performer-by-performance categorization which, as I'm sure know you, are routinely deleted. And the reason for that is very simple: it results in an explosion of category clutter at the bottom of the page. (There's nothing Procrustean about it).

To illustrate the problem, just take a look at two articles chosen at random from Category:New York City Ballet 2008 Spring repertory: Prodigal Son (ballet) is already listed in five of these categories, as well as in Category:New York City Ballet repertory, and Chaconne (ballet) is listed in six of these categories (plus Category:New York City Ballet repertory). The problem will only worsen over time as the number of these categories expands year by year. And if we were to allow these categories, how could we turn down equivalent sets of categories for any of the other leading ballet companies in the world?? We could easily see dozens of categories like these cluttering up the bottom of all too many ballet articles. As well-intended as these categories surely are, the road to category hell is paved with good intentions. I'm really very sorry, but we truly have no choice but to nip this in the bud. Cgingold (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. And just because noone happens to be working on it now, someone who happens to really like the Kirov Ballet and the Royal Ballet (or whatever) could easily justify adding these categories similarly. Not to mention adding rep in earlier years. The category system is simply not best used this way. And again, the information can EASILY be put into a list, and again, I'm trying to figure out why, say, List of New York City Ballet 2008 Spring repertory doesn't cover it. Looking at it differently, imagine if even three or four of the top orchestras were done similarly, and putting Category:2008 Berlin Philharmonic repertory for each piece they preformed that year, and then doing it for other years...then adding more orchestras. No no, it's just ridiculous and would be category clutter of the worst kind. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion - as was said, this is not about deleting information (but bear in mind, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information), this is about the misuse of categories - see Wikipedia:Overcategorization. For the same reason that films aren't categorized by film festival appearances and musicians aren't categorized by concert appearances, performances should not be categorized by venues performed at, since one could add countless venue/series categories. This type of information has a place in Wikipedia, but in the form of List articles. See also Wikipedia:Categories vs lists and Wikipedia:Listcruft. --Vossanova ^o< 15:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact this is about deleting information, there being a difference between information and data; information is organized data.

If every single category on Wikipedia were deleted there would be no loss of data — every article would still exist — but there would be enormous loss of information.

Deleting these ballet categories will also result in loss of information, specifically the answer to the question, "What ballets did NYCB dance at Saratoga Springs the summer of 2008?" (and this is a Ballet 101 question.) Ditto winter, ditto spring, ditto 2009, 2010 and — next — 2011.

The existing articles do not answer this (these) question(s), nor can you find this information by searching either City Ballet's website or via Google.

Unless, that is, you or Melodia Chaconne, Cgingold or Occuli|, is prepared to take it upon themslves to create a series of lists:

that preserve the information that the categories contain. Now, which of the four of you will it be?

Or perhaps you could share the work and each create five. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered why the existing lists aren't sufficient. Seriously Robert, I don't quite understand why you seem to think that every little tiny nugget about ballet should be WP. I mean, now I see you adding Ballet Project to composers who never wrote a note of ballet music in their life (like Jean Sibelius) just because some of their music happened to be adapted to it. Not related here, but the general fact that you seem to want to throw away any standard of guidelines on WP, and are somewhat able to get away with it because so few people care about ballet (at least here). It's...baffling really. And no, it's not on any of us to create the articles just because there shouldn't be categories. I'm certainly not about to. And again, why is NYC ballet rep so damn important? Again I'll use the example of the Berlin Philharmonic, which clearly doesn't have any such info anywhere (and yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and so on, but it's still a point). The fact that they preformed Symphony X by Composer Y in 2009 is really pretty indiscriminate, and the same thing applies here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to take issue with the suggestion that "so few people care about ballet". - Just because the pool of people contributing to ballet articles is very small, does not mean that there is not a lot of interest in the ballet resources that exist on WP. As Wikipedia is primarily a resources for people who are looking for information, the number of people providing that information is not really indicative of the subjects popularity. I'm sure if we had usage statistics, some of the ballet articles would prove to be very popular. The way I see it, if just one person can provide extensive and accurate information about a highly notable subject, fantastic, because on the flip side you could have 100 people all working to the same guidelines, but not really contributing anything of value. Crazy-dancing (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered why the existing lists are insufficient but will do so again.

The existing lists are chronological, and a ballet is usually danced several times in a given season.

The most basic question a Wikipedia user might ask about ballet is, "Which balllets did Company X dance in year Y?""

Internet users who are not particularly proficiernt with computers would need to print out the chronological list and cross off the repetitions.

Computers have not required this of their users since the days of punched cards and neither should Wikipedia.

Without 19 of the 21 categories you propose to delete, this is what they would have to do, so this is not a "little tiny nugget".

As to adding {{WikiProject Ballet}} templates to the talk pages for "composers who never wrote a note of ballet music", I have been doing this since my first days on Wikipedia,

There are numerous WikProject templates on many of the pages,. and nobody has ever complained because such a template asserts only that the page is of interest to the project in question.

Please note that I do not place {{Ballet}} templates at the bottom of articles about such composers precisely because they do not meaningfully relate to the ballet world (Stravinsky does.)

As you yourself wrote, it is "[n]ot related here", so your bringing it up can be viewed — charitably — as a tacit acknowledgement of the weakness of your arguments.

New York City Ballet is neither more nor less important to the ballet world than the New York Yankees are to baseball (see above.)

Nor is the comparison with the Berlin Philharmonic is particularly apt.

Ballet companies are organized along and perform on entirely different lines than orchestras (or opera or film production companies) and their coverage on Wikipedia should reflect those differences.

The Berlin Philharmonic might well benefit from more detailed coverage, but as they do not perform often in the English-speaking world are not likely to receive it, at least not on English Wikipedia.

"The fact that they preformed sic Symphony X by Composer Y in 2009 is" precisely what an Internet-based encyclopedia can record that a print-based reference book cannot.

This is the last I will write on the matter as I am going on vacation and will not return until the end of August (see below.) — Robert Greer (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion As it seems there is little support for keeping these categories, may I suggest that we at least seek to replace them with one category - Category:New York City Ballet repertoire. This would be a rather large category, but it would at least be some sort of compromise. I do think it serves a purpose to have such a category and if I had the time spare, I would certainly consider doing this for the Royal Ballet's repertoire also. And in response to the comparison with Berlin Phil, I see no reason why their rep shouldn't be categorised in the same way, especially if, as is the case with ballet companies, the repertoire is unique to, or part of the 'indentity' of the group. Crazy-dancing (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose deletion – I appreciate the spirit in which this compromise is proposed, but such a master category already exists.

The primary issue is whether Wikipedia should provide the average user with simple answers to the most basic questions about the largest ballet company in the US, which just happens to have the largest number of ballets in its repertory of any company in the world.

A subsidiary question is whether this should be provided in the current form of sub-categories, or whether they should be converted to lists — and, if so, which of the proponents of deleting the categories, Vossanova, Melodia Chaconne, Cgingold or Occuli is volunteering to do so.

This is a purely mechanical task, and if the presence of these categories so offends their sensibilities, I should think that at least one of them would step forward and offer to do so in the name of peace and prosperity.

However, the burden of proof remains upon those who propose deleting the lists and I do not think that what is written even approaches concensus.

This is the last I will write on the matter (see above.) — Robert Greer (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we support deletion does not obligate us to write lists for you. You are looking at this from a fan/expert's point of view, and I am looking at this from a neutral, purpose-of-Wikipedia point of view. The subject matter is irrelevant to me. Wikipedia should not be used as a sole repository of information. It should be a reference/compilation of other sources of information. More importantly, information should not be stored in categories - all categories should be obvious derivatives of the subject material. If you feel lists are important, I would recommend finding an external website containing the information, and link to it from WP. I realize you're not going to respond but wanted to make this clear in the discussion. --Vossanova ^o< 16:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note Relisted from 13 July. Courcelles (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete and listify. These categories raise similar issues to the explicitly-deprecated Performers by performance categories, viz that their use will lead to massive category clutter on articles. It's all very well saying that New York City Ballet is the biggest in the world, so this categories can be an exception ... but the same logic could be used to develop a similar category system for other major ballet companies such as the Bolshoi, and so on down the list of ballet companies: any line drawn would inevitably be arbitrary, and without a line the category-clutter on a popular ballet like Swan Lake would be truly horrendous.
  It's a trivial matter to dump the category members in to a bare list, and the closing admin should ensure that this sis done before the categories are deleted.
  Note that for a task like this, a list (or series of lists) may actually be much more useful to the reader than a category, because a category will include only the name of the ballet, but the list can include multiple data columns: composer, when first performed, or whatever. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• These lists already exist, see List of New York City Ballet 2009 Fall tour repertory etc. Very elaborate copies of each season's programs... is there any encyclopedic value? East of Borschov 08:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - I echo the comments of many here. I don't see these as being different from the "performer by performance" type of category that per consensus are not viable. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - I've carefully read through all the above comments. I've also gone off and looked at some of the categories, parent articles and categorised articles. Like some commenters I'm concerned that these categories are but the beginning of a large number of categories for ballet companies from around the world. The more popular ballets in the repertoire have the potential to have hundreds of categories on them - particularly as these are by season within a year.
  I'm also not sure that these categories serve the primary purpose of categories: improving navigation among sets of articles. WP:CAT#What categories should be created tells us "They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, [...] Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features." The fact that a particular ballet company performed a particular ballet in a particular location in a particular season of the year is not defining for that ballet. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and consider AFD of NOTDIR lists like List of New York City Ballet 2008 Winter repertory etc. A separate category makes sense for the shows that were written and (or) directed specifically for this company. Not for each season, not for each performance: just look at the mess in the bottom of Tarantella_(ballet) ... East of Borschov 08:41, 27 July 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 06:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Communist Party Opposition politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Communist Party of Germany (Opposition) politicians. Main article has been moved to its correct name. Soman (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename The name of the relevant article is 'Communist Party of Germany (Opposition)' rename per nom Hmains (talk) 02:45, 28 July 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 and delete, as per Occuli. Courcelles (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wine cocktails (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Cocktails with wine, sparkling wine, or port (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Cocktails with wine, sparkling wine, or port. Cocktails with wine, sparkling wine, or port follows the apparant naming conventions for cocktail lists, this doesn't Purplebackpack89 17:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Query – couldn't they both be merged to Category:Cocktails with wine? Occuli (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if we created the category. As of right now, I BOLDly moved all the items in Category:Wine cocktails to Category:Cocktails with wine, sparkling wine, or port. You can just CfR that to Category:Cocktails with wine to complete the cycle Purplebackpack89 18:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK (modified nom) Delete Category:Wine cocktails; rename Category:Cocktails with wine, sparkling wine, or port to the simpler Category:Cocktails with wine (as sparkling wine is wine and port is fortified wine). Occuli (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Wine cocktails, rename Category:Cocktails with wine, sparkling wine, or port to the simpler Category:Cocktails with wine (same as Occ) Purplebackpack89 19:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/delete per Occuli.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:16, 26 July 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: mergee. Courcelles (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Biogas to Category:Anaerobic digestion

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This appears to have been created as a list article and should have been deleted and moved. I'm not convinced that we need to keep and I don't think the articles need to be placed in all of the parent articles. So if there are a few more suitable targets, please say so. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. Beagel (talk) 07:58, 29 July 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. Necessary pruning should be done, but the rough consensus is that the category tree should be standardised. Courcelles (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Tennis people by American state to Category:American tennis people by state C2C. — ξ^xplicit 05:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Object. I know the parent category does go by this pattern, but the pattern needs to be put to the test at a CfD as the fact of the matter is, not every tennis player who from a state in the States has American citizenship - Mike Belkin being one. Mayumashu (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tennis people by American state to Category:American tennis people by state

Nominator's rationale: Following the objection to the speedy request (above), I'm nominating Category:Tennis people by American state to be renamed to Category:American tennis people by state for consistency with other subcategories, including Category:American basketball players by state, Category:American players of American football by state and Category:American soccer players by state. It doesn't make sense to make the nominated category an exception. Considering this is a subcategory of Category:American sportspeople by state, tennis players surely shouldn't be categorized as American if they aren't. — ξ^xplicit 03:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is. Certain tennis individuals may not have American citizenship but have been resident of a particular state while have been active in tennis. This is important as some of these non-Americans do contribute to the state and culture of tennis in that state (and another subcategory can be Category:Tennis in Texas etc. I suggest the supracategory Category:American sportspeople by state be the one, instead, that is renamed ultimately renamed - its supracategory in fact is the aptly named Category:People by state in the United States - at this level of the tree, the name does not suggest that citizenship be a determinant for inclusion, and this should be the approach taken. Mayumashu (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is. It is the category structure that should be changed. Category:Tennis people by American state should simply be removed from Category:American sportspeople by state. I would support a rename to Category:Tennis people by state in the United States. Occuli (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with Occuli's suggested rename as it s more consistent with prevalent naming patterns, such as Category:People by city in the United States and not Category:People by American city, etc. Mayumashu (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and purge. The entire category structure of Category:American people by occupation by state follows a single pattern: "American (X) by state". It includes only Americans in their state of residence. If this category's subcategories contain non-Americans, those articles should be removed from the categories. There's no reason to subvert an entire working category structure for a single sport.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But many subcats such as Category:Auburn Tigers tennis players are included. Does one have to be American to play for Auburn Tigers? Occuli (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Those categories belong under Category:College tennis players in the United States.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename either to "Tennis people by state in the United States" per Occuli or to "American tennis people by state" per nom and Mike Selinker. But the latter is easier and in keeping with the current category structure, while the former would suggest that we should re-do the whole category structure. cmadler (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. If we have problems, it is with the entire tree and that should be a different discussion. Better to rename this to match the existing names then to leave this as an exception. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 4 August 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. — ξ^xplicit 06:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Zionsville, Indiana to Category:People from Boone County, Indiana

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC too small a place with too few notable people for a category to be necessary Mayumashu (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment' It has about the same population as Deniliquin in Australia which has Category:People from Deniliquin. Perhaps it needs populating rather than merging? There is a decent sized list at Zionsville, Indiana#Notable residents -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don t know. If we 'allow' a town of 7000 to have a 'people from' cat, because it has a disproportionately high number of notables, then do contributors take it from that than any place of 7000 or 5000 can have a page regardless of high many notables are from there. I think we need to have a set minimum for a category page to exist (Personally I d support one of three choices - a 3-link, 4-link, or 5-link minimum) and where there isn t the required minimum, categories must be upmerged / cannot exist. (This nomination is actually based on another approach particular for a place, that it have a minimum population, but this approach would nt work more generally, obviously.) We really need to consider having a written down set of WP guidelines particularly for categories based on some minimum, and not based on 'completing a category tree', as this kind of category illustrates. Mayumashu (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. There is a better list in the town's article. I don't think we can say yes or no simply based on the size of the town. Maybe a consideration is, does the settlement support am eponymous category? If the answer is yes, then this type of category is justified. That does not create a requirement that needs to be meet, but is simply a point to consider. Since the list in the article was being maintained and the category contents were not, my vote supports the most accurate navigation tool being accurately maintained. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:52, 2 August 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. Courcelles (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Algal products to Category:Edible algae

Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Edible algae. No need for this extra level of navigation. As I read the information both of these are polysaccharides and are already included directly in Category:Polysaccharides. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Beagel (talk) 08:00, 29 July 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: divide as proposed into Category:Financial markets, Category:Retail markets (instead of creating Category:Markets (places)),and Category:Markets (customer bases) and make this into a DAB category. I'll do the subdivision as best I can; it may be worthwhile if someone does a checkover what I do. If it's still thought that we need Category:Markets (places), that may be created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. While I nominated this as a delete, this is more of a question about what to do. While we have an article titled market, it is rather broad in what is included. As such, the category name is ambiguous. The focus of that article seems to be more on financial markets rather then physical ones, ignoring the fact that stock exchanges are for the most part still a physical place. The introduction says that this is JEL: D40. The D places it in microeconomics, the 4 places it in market structure and pricing and the 0 means general. How any of this applies to a farmers market or a market town is something that I'm not seeing. So I guess the question is how do we breakout that is included in Category:Markets? Do we keep the category as a real parent with a limited number of subcategories and what should those categories be? Or does this become a dab category and what does it dab to? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think we need some way to distinguish between:

1. A market (place) a physical location where goods are bought and sold
2. A market (customer base), i.e. the group of classification of persons who are potential buyers for a product (.e.g. "Svengali (2008) and O'Rahilly (2009) both reported that the market for mobile phones with integrated missile launchers appeared to concentrated in Surrey")
3. A financial market

Only the latter seems to have an obvious name, but maybe there is a business or economics WikiProject which can help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contacted the retailing, business and finance Wikiprojects. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an appropriate search term, but as the headnote says, it should be a parent-only category, covering all the concepts listed by BHG. What we need is some one who will move things to more appropriate daughter categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you OK with three subcategories as proposed by BHG, Category:Financial markets, Category:Market (places) and Category:Market (customer base)? If so we can close this and simply, I hope, move these contents into one of these three categories. If this is the way it closes, could the closer drop a note on the talk page of those in this discussion to do the move. It would really be nice if the closer could do the splitting. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 3 August 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 13:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fossil fuels in South Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Fossil fuels in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. No need for this extra level of navigation. All of the subcategories are already listed in the sole parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 07:59, 29 July 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 07:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Musical albums with Gabor Szakacsi to Category:Gabor Szakacsi albums

Nominator's rationale: Per massive precedent. Speedy? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of these are Gábor Szakácsi albums, they are merely albums released by bands when Gábor Szakácsi was a member of the band. They should be divided between Category:Sledgeback albums and Category:C.A.F.B. albums as appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. They are now divided appropriately between Category:Sledgeback albums and Category:C.A.F.B. albums. Occuli (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn Please delete instead. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:57, 27 July 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: Upmerge as nominated. Even if Category:Artists from Melbourne needs to be upmerged, as long as it hasn't been, pages from this category belong there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Melbourne graffiti artists to Category:Australian graffiti artists and Category:Artists from Melbourne

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Too fine and a occupation by city cat. Mayumashu (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Would Category:Graffiti artists from Victoria (Australia) be acceptable? Or do we stop breaking down occupation at nation-state level? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. We do stop there, Mattinbgn. Compare, say, Category:Heavy metal musicians. There are subcategories like Category:American heavy metal musicians but not Category:Heavy metal musicians from New York.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge – and we do try (some of us) to stop short of Category:Artists from Melbourne although someone has been very busy tidying Category:People from Melbourne into neat little subcats. Occuli (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. Those really should be upmerged too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Category:Artists from Melbourne needs to be upmerged, at some point, to Category:People from Melbourne, given the recent iniative to get rid of people by city by occupation. But, likely, it should also to be upmerged to a Category:Artists from Victoria (Australia), just as there a Category:Musicians from New York (for the state including the city). There is a pretty well formed category tree for the equivalent people by general occupation by American state, Canadian province, Spanish autonomous community. Saying this though, there arent alike trees for people by general occupation by 'UK county', German state, French region, and so on. Mayumashu (talk) 18:47, 27 July 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: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Sydney graffiti artists to Category:Australian graffiti artists and Category:People from Sydney

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Too fine a distinction and an occupation by city category. Mayumashu (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:21, 26 July 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 August 3#Category:Cocktails with coffee liqueur. — ξ^xplicit 06:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cocktails with coffee liqueur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. Purplebackpack89 00:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Now it has five. The entire cocktail tree could use with some heavy application of subcategorization.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:20, 26 July 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.