Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 2

< May 1	May 3 >

May 2[edit]

Category:Gyllenhaal family[edit]

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) 11:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL. Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep and delete WP:SMALLCAT. One of the more pernicious bits of nonsense around on Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep clearly notable as nobility and entertainment well populated with only relevant individuals of the family. Plus as it is a family there is the obvious growth potential.RafikiSykes (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of a well-established tree, with enough articles to justify retention.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment growth potential means there are other notable people who currently lack articles, not that in the future there might be more notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As they are multi-generational and not likely to be well-interlinked. This isn't like Category:Baldwin family which only had one generation of brothers who will all be linked tightly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mainly because the multi-generational issue means inter-article linkages will be much more confusing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 3 May 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.

Category:Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund members[edit]

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. There is a clear consensus that the nominator's rationale is invalid, and hat WP:SMALLCAT does not apply here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: per Wp:SMALLCAT but listify to Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund beforehand. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SMALLCAT only applies if two conditions are met: the category must a) be small and b) have no potential for growth. In other words, categories "that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members." It is easy to see that none of that applies to this case. The category in question already has 34 members. Besides, the corresponding category in the German-language wikipedia has 130 members, which means that there is plenty of room for growth. Monegasque (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But whether we get that growth on the English Wikipedia is the question. And my answer is maybe, and if so it can be recreated. Deletion is not permanent. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully the definition for WP:SMALLCAT: to qualify, a category must both a) be small and b) have no potential for growth. As this category a) already has 34 members and b) can only grow as articles from the German-language wikipedia (where the corresponding category already has 130 members) are translated, we can only come to the conclusion that the conditions for applying WP:SMALLCAT are not met. Keep in mind that WP:SMALLCAT is meant to be applied only to cases "that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members." Example: The Beatles' wives, Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor, Catalan-speaking countries. Just by looking at these examples, it is easy to understand that WP:SMALLCAT has nothing to do with cases like this one. Monegasque (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree with arguments about smallcat. It doesn't apply here. The bigger question is, do we keep membership of political parties? We have this one for example: Category:College Democrats and Category:California_Democrats (which contains, of all people, George Clooney). So the real argument here is, is this (or any political party) category defining? Because of the massive proliferation of political party membership, I am leaning towards keep for now until someone can make a more global argument about which political parties we keep and which ones we don't.--KarlB (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It certainly can be defining, especially in connection with other factors. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – SDS membership is certainly defining in Germany; articles about every one of the category members are routinely laced with references to their role in the SDS. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:56, 7 May 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.

Category:Riflemen's Association members[edit]

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) 22:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SMALLCAT only applies if two conditions are met: the category must a) be small and b) have no potential for growth. In other words, it concerns categories "that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members." At the time I'm writing, this category already has 49 members. Moreover, it has considerable potential for growth, as new articles will be translated from the Polish-language wikipedia. The corresponding category in the Polish-language wikipedia already has 191 members. This means that WP:SMALLCAT obviously cannot be applied to this case. Monegasque (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because of WP:SMALLCAT (it's not even particularly small), but because being a member of this organization is often not defining for those so categorized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:31, 10 May 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.

Category:Real Irish Republican Army members[edit]

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) 11:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Seamus Daly needs to be bunged into Real Irish Republican Army -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The various organisations involved in the Troubles all have a similar "members" category where appropriate, thus negating SMALLCAT due to the "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" part. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a useful category. Monegasque (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:One Night In Hackney (2 lines of K). This is an exception to WP:SMALLCAT in two respects: a) it is part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"; b) it has potential for expansion as Wikipedia's coverage of The Troubles expands. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 9 May 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.

Category:Polish Rifle Squads members[edit]

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, though the comments (and a look at some of the categorized articles) suggest that some cleanup is in order, particularly with regard to categorization of people in the absence of (reliably sourced) supporting text. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Add the two member articles to Polish Rifle Squads. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SMALLCAT only applies when two conditions are met: the category must a) be small and b) have no potential for growth. In other words, WP:SMALLCAT only applies to categories "that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members." The category we are discussing already has 17 members, and more members will be added as new articles will be translated from the Polish-language wikipedia. As the corresponding category in the Polish-language wikipedia already has 70 members, there is considerable potential for growth. Monegasque (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SMALLCAT and per Monegasque. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because of WP:SMALLCAT (it's not even particularly small), but because being a member of this organization is often not defining for those so categorized. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not noteworthy enough. Kierzek (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the standards, has chance for expansion, and is (admittedly arguably) defining. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but limit contents to those whose articles mention in the text membership (which is the minimum rule for inclusion in any category.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In looking over Category:Paramilitary organizations, it's subcats seem to have subcats for members. (Including the nominated cat.) So for now: if they all go, this should be deleted, else, weak keep. - jc37 23:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and listify to Polish Rifle Squads. Categorisation may prove unwanted in time, but at the moment, it is helpful to expansion of the enclopedia. Making it a hidden to talk page category might be a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 24 May 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.

Category:Organisation Consul members[edit]

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. Does need listifying, but that can be done alongside the cat. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: onlt three articles. Needs listifying into Organisation Consul. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The category now has five members, not 3, and membership of Organisation Consul (an an ultra-nationalist force responsible for high-profile assassinations) is clearly defining for its members. This is not like membership of a club; it is more akin to serving in a military unit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 10 May 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.

Category:German Peace Society members[edit]

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 and listify. Merging preserves the contents in the appropriate parent cat. For listifying, a screenshot of the contents before merging is located here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Listify into the stubby German Peace Society article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This category already has 22 members. The corresponding category in the German-language wikipedia has 66 members, which means that there is plenty of room for expansion as new articles will be translated into English. This category is an important subcategory of Category:German pacifists and there are many good reasons to keep it. Monegasque (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. Categorizing by membership in a club or society is not a good idea due to category clutter. It's also not particularly defining for most of those included; often it's not mentioned in the applicable articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per Good Ol'factory's argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:German pacifists and listify. AFAICS from a quick scan of the articles in the category, several of the people in the category were defined by their peace activism, but I didn't see any defined by their membership of the society. Please DO NOT just delete the category; these people should not be removed from Category:German pacifists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:German pacifists and listify. - per BHG. - jc37 23:45, 22 May 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.

Category:Armed Islamic Group of Algeria members[edit]

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Boualem Bensaïd will need to be added to Armed Islamic Group of Algeria somewhere before the cat is deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are more notable people in this group, just because we do not have more articles is no reason to delete the category. Membership in this group is defining for those who are in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JPL. Clearly defining, and per the head article Armed Islamic Group of Algeria there is a real possibility of expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 10 May 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.

Category:Christian Peace Conference members[edit]

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 on deleting the category, but general support for making a list. – Fayenatic London (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Listify into Christian Peace Conference -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This category already has 46 members. Moreover, the corresponding category in the German-language wikipedia has as much as 252 members, which means that there is considerable room for expansion as new articles are translated. This is an interesting category and it definitely should be kept. Monegasque (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify. Categorizing by membership in a club or society is not a good idea due to category clutter. It's also not particularly defining for most of those included; often it's not mentioned in the applicable articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it's not mentioned in the articles, that's a shortcoming of the articles that should be rectified, not a reason to delete the category. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, often, it can be an indication that it's not defining for the individuals—even if failure to mention it initially is something that should be rectified. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to suppose membership in this organization was defining. Membership does not exclude membership in other organizations and is not requiring of enough time and effort to even theoretically effect a persons actions much. This is the type of organization that classifying by membership in it is an open invitation for massive numbers of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Though I'm not opposed to listification as well.) - I looked at the references at Christian Peace Conference, and I think that there may be more here than meets the eye. - jc37 23:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Keep/Delete, but it should be listified to Christian Peace Conference, with a view to expansion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:39, 24 May 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.

Category:Mountain Club of South Africa members[edit]

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, recategorising members manually as South African mountain/rock climbers. – Fayenatic London (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: listify into Mountain Club of South Africa (which incidentally is not linked to or from the category). Also, the stub article needs a bit more content. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify. Categorizing by membership in a club or society is not a good idea due to category clutter. It's also not particularly defining for most of those included. Category:South African mountain climbers would be the more obvious choice for a category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and listify. Membership of a particular club is not defining, so the articles should be merged into Category:South African mountain climbers. A list can be added to Mountain Club of South Africa. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delte membership in this club is non defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Merge. The parent Category:Mountaineering club members by country only has this cat as a member, and should subsequently be deleted as well. - jc37 23:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the mountaineers to Category:South African mountain climbers and the rock climbers Category:South African rock climbers. (Some already seem to be in the appropriate category.) Listifying seems uncontroversial, so I've added a list of notable members to Mountain Club of South Africa. Jafeluv (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The membership of nine is already listed at Mountain_Club_of_South_Africa#Notable members. This category is not as defining as actual achievement-based categories. The members may be added to other categories, such as Category:South African mountain climbers and the rock climbers Category:South African rock climbers on a case-by-case basis. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then delete the then emptied parent category, Category:Mountaineering club members by country. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 24 May 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.

Category:Yahoo! Groups[edit]

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) 10:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: After the previous Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_17#Category:Yahoo.21_Groups CfD, I and others purged this category of all entities that were not "groups that exist solely as yahoo groups". I wasn't able to find any that fit this bill. The only articles that remain are a few about yahoo groups as a service; I think per WP:SMALLCAT we should delete the cat. Note that there are many groups at Category:Electronic mailing lists. The closest thing I found to a real standalone yahoo group was this one: Transportation Communications Newsletter, but it started its life on a different email server, and now uses both yahoo and google groups to disseminate content, thus I think it has found a very happy home at Category:Electronic mailing lists, and I don't see any need for further division by which product is used (for example, I hope we don't need to create Category:Google groups, Category:LISTSERV groups, Category:Majordomo groups, Category:Listbot groups etc... KarlB (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the clearly enunciated reasons outlined by the nominator. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough relevant material at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; the members are already categorised by both the head categories (Yahoo and mailing lists). – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:18, 4 May 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.

Category:Scooby-Doo animated films[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Scooby-Doo animated films to Category:Scooby-Doo films

Nominator's rationale: All but four of the films are animated. There is no need for the two categories. JDDJS (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. The other head categories on the nominated category do not need to be added to the target, which is better categorised already. – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I could see having the live action ones in their own category though as those are the deviation from the norm.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge per nom. 76.7.224.171 (talk) 14:10, 6 May 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.

Category:National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics[edit]

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: Wrong venue - I (very) rarely suggest this, but the discussion below was more about the members of the category than the category itself. It sounds like this should go to WP:MFD due to the concerns noted below. - jc37 23:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Deletion refers to the content, not the category listing page.

This category contains 50+ articles based on NACA technical reports, e.g. NACA Report No. 132 These are now being proded individually (e.g. 99, 102, 104), for a variety of reasons. A centralised discussion is more appropriate. Other solutions, such as transwikiing, may be better solutions. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki would seem a reasonable course for most of them, but where should they go to? I suppose Wikisource could take a literal copy of the reports, which are PD-GOV, but what about content discussing the reports, designs influence by them, links to bios of the investigators, etc? Many of these reports were quite influential in the history of aviation engineering, and substantially affected the career paths of their authors. One author, for instance, after investigating motor designs for NACA, went on to be the president of the Society of Automotive Engineers and of Chrysler. It would be a shame to loose such information.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very poor form to make word-for-word copies of extensive passages out of someone's work without any credit. Even if the works are pre-1923 and works of the US government, this is still plagiarism if not a copyright infringement. The reports, individually, are not particularly notable and cover fairly obscure and specialized technical subjects in minute detail. Even the short summaries at the start of some of the documents aren't really suitable for an encyclopediac article because there's no context for the details being described. There's no need to preseve these in the Wikipedia, and the owner of the papers is doing the job of archiving them. A nice overview of the scientific activiites of NACA might be a fine article, but the sun will be blotted out by flying pigs before that happens. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deprodding them all while we have a centralized discussion here. We could link here from the talk page of each one. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is asking for the right deletion. We need the various "NACA Report" and "NACA Technical Note" articles removed (or better yet, digested point form in some "Summary of NACA reports from the '20s that you can read in full at the NASA Web site") ; there's nothing wrong with the Wikipedia "Category:National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics ". --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we really want Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_nominate_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion instead? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these reports may be more significant & cited than others, so a group AfD might not be a good idea. Some are highly cited:NACA Report 824 has 259 cites in GScholar. NACA 184 134 hits, NACA 116 has 68 hits . Unfortunately, it is impossible to trust any us government web site for permanent availability of anything--I think there have been previous unhappy experiences with NTIS, but since these were distributed as government documents other sites do have them all: University of North Texas, for example, has a complete file online. Proper writing of encyclopedic articles based on them would be a rather elaborate process--it takes much more skill than to simply transcribe them. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep: I just wanted to make a general comment. Although I agree that copy and pasted verbatum articles of this type it is extremely bad editorial form and should be avoided these are based on US Government documents and not subject to copyright. So although we do need to Wikify/Clean these up I do not think that they all need to be deleted just for the sake of deleting them. Kumioko (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (supplementary) But it's still plagiarism even if not a violation of copyright law. It also makes for very murky writing. If any report was notable, surely someone would ahave been writing about the NACA reports as a whole, rather than citing them to fill out a citations list? If someone could write something like "The NACA reports were a long running series of papers reporing experimental investigations of NACA. There were siginficant as a leading source of aerodynamic data of the time. Particularly important was NACA report number 314, which directly lead to the invention of the in-flight movie." or something of that form. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on part of that I do agree with you completely. It is extremely bad writing and I agree that an article about the NACA's is needed. I chalk that up to the tens millions of other red links we have. Just because it doesn't yet exist doesn't mean that the individual reports themselves are meaningless. I just don't agree that these need to be deleted. Cleaned up, expanded, wikified and the like yes, but not deleted. Kumioko (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purge (most) contents to Wikisource and Merge category to Category:NASA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that these articles are at best the verbatim abstract from the original reports with a lead paragraph. Content is technical and lacks all context for the then state of aviation development. The absence of any referencing establishing notability marks them down as not meeting standard for an article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:44, 13 May 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.

Category:Plants with indehiscent fruit[edit]

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 - incidentally, Category:Plants with dehiscent fruit doesn't appear to have been tagged. - jc37 23:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_15#Category:Plants_with_dehiscent_fruit -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both without prejudice to recreating if they can be adequately populated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These two pages have been under attack since we started work on them. The work is difficult, but the potential for producing something really useful is great. However, I'm disinclined to continue the work because of these attacks, and have come to feel that the wikipedia community doesn't deserve our efforts. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm sorry if you feel that way. This can be a tough crowd. I don't know anything about fruit, but could you please tell me, of all of the different fruit, which percentage are dehiscent and which percentage are indehiscent? And, are all of them one or the other - i.e. can a fruit be something else entirely? Categories are usually created to aid navigation, and to help classify by characteristics which are 'defining'. For example, in this template Template:Fruits, I see the following kinds of fruit - Accessory fruit · Simple fruit · Compound fruit · Aggregate fruit · Multiple fruit · Dehiscent fruit; so the question is, is it useful to categorize all of the fruits in wikipedia along these lines, or along different lines, or along all of those lines? We already seem to categorize things based on their biological families, so I guess this nomination brings up the question of whether we classify biological entities by other characteristics as well, and if so, which ones? --KarlB (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, fruits are either dehiscent or indehiscent, there isn't any third category. Simple, compound, and aggregate fruit can all be dehiscent or indehiscent. I can't think of any multiple fruit that are dehiscent, perhaps that can't happen, and the same might be true of accessory fruit (unless wintergreen or something like it is dehiscent, I'm not sure). The reason this would be a major effort is two-fold, firstly that even botanists have to think hard about many cases and probably have to look it up, and secondly, that one needs to check higher up the classification to see at what point the fruit types differ (sometimes different species in a genus differ, sometimes whole families have the same fruit type). Nadiatalent (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Given that all plants fall in one of the two categories, is one much more common than the other? Also, I found this which may be useful for some: [1]. It suggests that one top-level division is simple/aggregate/multiple, and then simple is split between fleshy and dry, and dry is split between dehiscent or indehiscent. But that's I suppose just one way to do it. Perhaps a way forward would be to come to a consensus with the editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants on a categorization system for fruit types; I think what CfD editors are opposing is 1) the emptiness of the cats even after several months and 2) whether this one factor is a sufficient distinguishing factor. You may have a much stronger case if you say "ok, according to the standard in botany, this is the whole fruit-classification taxonomy, and we're going to do the work to put that into wikipedia, and it will be great b/c we can easily find all the pomes or all the xxx etc. - so its not just about these two categories, you could propose to do all of the fruit types (or at least, set up the categories). Also found this, which however seems much less likely to get amateur editors to be able to help with [2] - it's perhaps because of that you might consider a discussion with the Botany group to propose a new category hierarchy for fruit classification, perhaps simplified in a way that regular users might derive some utility from it (i.e show me all the things like apples, etc)... --KarlB (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the presence of two pages on WP are being questioned is no need to give up editng WP entirely. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only thing going on here; it's the attitude. (please see remainder of my entry, below) Hamamelis (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity should not be interpreted as aggression or personal attacks. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listify. I note that there is no list, and only a very short section on fruit in dehiscence (botany), so categorization is premature. Once we have a sufficiently populated list, we can re-create the categories easily.- choster (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Choster - How many plants listed would it take to justify the categories, in your opinion?

To Allen - I can understand why Nadia uses the words 'under attack' (above). Nobody reacts well to being perfunctorily dismissed (see below; 'No point'; 'worthless for readers', etc. smacks of passive aggression). I have encountered it here and there at Wikipedia, and I know it always makes me want to just "give up" (which I am on the brink of doing); that is, it feels like a bullying tactic, and I hate having to fight right out of the gate when a calmer, more respectful conversation will do much better. If only the feisty (a positive attribute, in moderation) remain at Wikipedia, than it will, by-and-by, become an encyclopedia of angry editors only, as the peace-loving depart. Any editor's views should be able to stand on there own merits without having to dismiss those of others as 'worthless', which is disrespectfull (believe it or not). I do not believe your (or anyone's) views are 'worthless', even if I strongly disagree with them.

To Allan, again - How can you be so certain about knowing what 'the reader' wants? How can anyone? People come to an encyclopedia for a myriad of reasons. Lets say you are correct even 60% the time about "what the reader wants", which I would rate as very high. What about the other 40% who come for other things. We should, in my opinion, avoid a tyranny of the majority situation (especially when that majority is those readers who are arbitrarily decided by the opinion of one, or a small group of editors). Frankly, I am baffled by, and can't help finding this attitude (as it appears to me) very offensive; it goes against efforts at finding consensus when one believes the consensus has already formed (ie: your "readers").

To everyone - I am perfectly happy to discuss the other options, such as listifying, or sub-catagorization (as Rkitko mentioned here), in a way that forms a consensus: whatever works best. However, I definitely think the categories have a strong basis of merit, if they can eventually be made workable. Personally, I think sub-categories, first, would be better. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just a note - it appears this category was emptied out of process then proposed for speedy delete back in December;I think they were then repopulated and brought for CfD, but I can understand why Hamamelis may feel put upon.

Hamamelis, back to the point, after the previous CfD closed, these categories did not grow; however, from my current understanding, it seems like it shouldn't be that hard to populate these, as Nadia points out every fruit is one or the other - so am I missing something? Why weren't more things put in? Also I'd appreciate your thoughts on the broader point I made above, about not just looking at these two cats, but at a broader system of fruit classification (i.e. fleshy/dry, or simple/multiple, pomes, etc etc) - and whether you might consider proposing a broader classification system than this one (with super cats and subcats/etc) - then you may have a better chance. I do agree with Alan's point below, in that wikipedia is not a database and we shouldn't use the category system to categorize based on every feature of an entity, so I think the argument has to be, of all the ways to classify fruit, is this particular thing defining? I think I would be supportive of a more comprehensive 'types of fruit' system, just because it would be educational and useful to see all of the X put together. --KarlB (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No point. It would contain thousands of entries. Makes it worthless for readers and a waste of time for editors. This is an encyclopaedia - not a database. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my close from December, I wrote, "If it remains unpopulated after a few months, then it can be deleted." It's four months later, and they remain unpopulated. That was adequate time to justify the categories, and it didn't happen.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, there has been no effort to populate these categories following the previous CFD, so these should be deleted as was suggested by the previous close. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait... why is lack of effort a reason to delete? I disagreed with Mike Selinker's closing conditional statement. The category had been populated but was depopulated and sent to speedy deletion a while ago. I don't believe it was ever fully repopulated. So yes, there's been a lack of effort to repopulate the categories. If that's you're only criteria for deletion, what's your minimum threshold for keeping? Would 50 articles in each be considered populated enough? Rkitko ^(talk) 02:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I checked my edit history and they appear to be repopulated to about the same extent. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 12:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - "why is the lack of effort a reason to delete?" Because leaving the category to exist in its current state can leave the impression that those categorized are the only plants with indehiscent fruit or dehiscent fruit. The category should be deleted unless/until a user is prepared to properly populate it. If no one is prepared to do that massive amount of work, then apparently it's not worth it and we probably don't need it as a category. This is all without prejudice to someone stepping forward at some stage to do the work, but I don't see that yet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - As others note below, that's counter-productive. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. I think there are sufficient entries now to be considered analogous to a "stub." Isn't this what {{Underpopulated category}} was made for? Not CfD! Rkitko ^(talk) 00:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a point worth considering and it is one possible apporach to take here, and I might agree with it had the exact issue of underpopulation not been explicitly raised at the previous CFD with a close that the category would be deleted unless some work was done to populate it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reason as in the previous discussion. I see no valid reason to delete here, just lamentations that no one's taken the time yet to refill the categories. An easy thing to do if I had the time. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of reasons for deletion:

It is sitting around without being populated, making of no use to readers.
No editors are making an effort to populate the categories.
Botanists themselves don't bother publishing such lists so why should we do it on WP? Note that WP should follow the scientific community rather than lead (at least in this case...)
It can always be recreated if someone wants to put in the time to add the 10s of 1000s^{[citation needed]} of species.
A category with 10s of 1000s^{[citation needed]} of species is of no interest to readers even if it were subcategorised. Dehiscent is not a particularly exciting characteristic, so readers will not wade through pages and pages and pages of species.
indehiscence and dehiscence is a defining characteristic of fruit but so is black hair and blue eyes for people. There are limits to how we categorise articles.

We may be volunteers here but we still should do a cost-benefit analysis on the work we do. In this case the cost (time) is high and the benefits are low or non-existent. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 12:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ask anyone first if they could spare some time to populate the categories?
Categories are for navigation, they are not lists. It is irrelevant what botanists do. They do identify this character when describing plant species and genera. Botanists also don't make lists of Category:Plants described in 2012, but we have no problem with those categories.
For the most part in my experience, this is a character shared by all species of a genus. I don't know why you're characterizing this as 10s of 1000s of species in a category. I added a few more genus articles to each category. I again ask, how many will be enough to satisfy you that it's being used?
"Dehiscent is not a particularly exciting characteristic" is your opinion. Reading about it just now in the groups I study I found some interesting patterns. What may not be of utility to you is of certain utility to others.
Indehiscence and dehiscence is a defining characteristic, yes, but I disagree with your analogy to hair or eye color. For individual people these are minor characteristics. For species or genera, these are often apomorphies that help delimit the taxon from other closely related ones. In my opinion, it deserves a category because of that.

I think your point about a cost-benefit analysis is ridiculous; besides, you're clearly down-weighting the benefits by being dismissive of the character. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the category were reasonably populated, it is potentially quite valuable.Botanists don't do this because it's encyclopedic, and there's no return for academic botanists to do encyclopedic things. But, as Rkitko points out, interesting patterns can be found in the data; similar studies of dioecy demonstrated that the standard ecological rationale didn't hold up when the phenomenon was looked at in a phylogenetic context. One of the values of encyclopedias is that they juxtapose large amounts of information in ways that spur creativity, and Wikipedia excels in that, in large part because of categories. It would be a shame to take a stance eviscerating categories simply because others might use them for original research outside Wikipedia.
On the other hand, the category may not ever be reasonably populated. For many groups, finding out the information is difficult, since it is not often noted, and in some cases may require direct examination of the organisms. It's not like a bot could go through some electronic body of information and extract it; it takes drudge work by botanists, and the only thing that makes it worthwhile is that many botanists, each doing a little, can create a category of value. If it's still relatively empty in five years, perhaps it should be nuked then, but I'm enough of an eventualist to want to give it a shot.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate.
- Since every plant species is notable, and quite possibly every commercial variety judging from some past AfDs, to categorize them in multiple ways is useful to the reader. A category and a list would both be needed--a list can give information that a category can't , but they can best be prepared simultaneously. It doesn't matter how long it takes, we're not about to close down Wikipedia. All volunteer efforts of this sort sort be encouraged, and attacking them is the way to remove knowledgable contributors who will not soon be replaced.
- Come to think of it, doing deletions like this and removing useful work and making people do it twice over would in fact close down Wikipedia earlier than the natural life cycle. A cost-benefit analysis is out of context--there is no cost to the project; volunteers work on what they want to work on. We can guide them perhaps in the most helpful direction, but if they want to pursue some special part of the encyclopedia, that's the way it got built in the first place. It is improper of us to judge anyone's special interest as of low value if they want to do the work for it--if they were to ask me to do the work, I would feel otherwise. If it were a question of allocating grant money from the Foundation, then a cost benefit analysis would be appropriate.
- Every effort spent to trying to remove things like this harms the encyclopedia directly and indirectly; directly by removing potentially useful material or organization, indirectly by discouraging participation. The people supporting deletion of this ought to be doing some positive work themselves--they may waste their own time as they please, but they are wasting the time of others in endlessly trying to counteract their ~~baleful~~ influence. ~~I hope the time will come when this sort of nomination is considered abusive.~~ We can have many coexisting ideas on categorization. Only if they are confusing or harmful need they be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally, I believe that the current situation of this categorization scheme being not even close to well-populated is confusing to users and "harmful" to WP, because it could leave the impression that those categorized are the only plants with indehiscent fruit or dehiscent fruit. I think you should not comment on other users with phrases such as "baleful influence", nor should you suggest that users who work in areas of WP that they find interest in are wasting their time. In other words, I think it would be appropriate to extend to other users the same tolerance that you seem keen to have extended to this categorization scheme. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you misunderstand., There can be more than one way to do categories. Make those you like, and let others do likewise. I understand you are trying to find a consistent single best way of categorization, but what you are trying to do is convince everyone that your way and only your way is right. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I am misunderstanding, unless I have misunderstood something you have said about other editors. Of course I realise there are multiple ways to desire a system to be. And with respect to categories—no, my aim is not to "convince everyone that [my] way and only [my] way is right". I have expressed an opinion, and I understand that it is different than others'. I can live with that, I assure you. But my present concern is for you to not attack other editors and their opinions. No one who is editing in good faith is a "baleful influence.". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that wording was too strong; I apologize for it, and have struck some of my comment . But I am generally of the opinion that removing material that is neither harmful nor confusing nor inappropriate, just not ideal, is not the best use of our efforts. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

but Good Ol’factory, you have on several occasions attacked me and my opinions. No? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible you have interpreted something I have written in that way. I have not ever said you were a "baleful influence" on Wikipedia or anything like that. I can't remember exactly what you might be referring to but believe off the top of my head I have said that some of the categories you have created were not particularly helpful. If there is something I have said that has upset you, I'm sorry for that and have not meant to attack you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep with caveats The categories are now starting to get populated. If it is indeed the case that indehiscent or dehiscent is more common, it may be worth it to focus on only categorizing one. Also, as mentioned above, it would be better if this was placed within a larger fruit type classification scheme, and not just focus on this one attribute. --KarlB (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is too technical a way to distinguish plants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a new one to me. Could you explain how, exactly, a characteristic of the fruit is too technical and why that's a reason to delete? In fact, this is one of many entirely reasonable ways that botanists use to distinguish plants. I'll grant you that sometimes in some groups the characters used to distinguish groups can seem esoteric, such as whether the anther is erect or bent in orchids which turns out to be a big defining character for orchids, but among flowering plants the indehiscence/dehiscence character doesn't sort neatly and switches among and within genera. Because it doesn't map to any particular phylogeny or evolutionary history, that's why I think these categories are useful. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : agreeing largely with KarlB's 'keep with caveats' (above), except since all plants exhibit broadly one or the other of these traits, both should be here; else it is incomplete. Sub-cats of both, as I see it, will eventually be necessary. Hamamelis (talk) 00:03, 13 May 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.

Category:Read online by subscription[edit]

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) 10:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a sub-cat of Newspapers by type, but that is not clear from the category name, so if kept then the category should be renamed to mention newspapers. However, it is now becoming so common for newspapers to require an online subscription that this is not a defining characteristic, hence I am suggesting deletion. – Fayenatic L (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This sort of category is completely inappropriate for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. --KarlB (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; certainly not defining and not something we would want to categorize by even if it was. User:Ottawahitech has had a number of problematic category creations to his credit. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non defining characteristic.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. LeSnail (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know of newspapers that used to be this that are not anymore. It is not inherent in the newspaper, just a changing decisions on marketing methods.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the risk of being ridiculed by others in this discussion, I believe the overwhelming support for the deletion of this and other categories at Wikipedia is based on the silver spoon attitude shared by many wikipedians who belong to group of people who do not experience first hand the frustrations faced by those who do not have high-speed connections to the Internet and cannot imagine what it is like for the less fortunate to try and access paid publications which are routinely provided as references to articles here. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. Also hard to keep up to date as marketing strategies often change. Many or most of these give some stuff free, often a lot, and the category may be over-simplistic. I suggest User:Ottawahitech applies to Wikipedia:HighBeam, which may help a bit. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 8 May 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.

Category:National Rifle Association members[edit]

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. Per WP:CAT#Overview, "the central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential - defining - characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics" ... and the consensus here is that membership of the NRA is rarely a defining characteristic. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Membership in a club/political lobby group is not defining. It would make sense to have Category:National Rifle Association people to group leaders of the NRA (we do already have Category:Presidents of the National Rifle Association, which is good), but it does not make a lot of sense to have a category for NRA members which groups Tom Clancy, Ulysses S. Grant, John F. Kennedy, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Theodore Roosevelt, Sarah Palin, Michael Moore, Tom Selleck, Karl Malone, Nolan Ryan, etc. The nature of the NRA has changed dramatically since the early 1980s, so this grouping makes even less sense—it looks like an attempt to suggest that pre-1980 figures like Kennedy, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, and Grant would have supported the NRA's current agenda. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, not defining. --KarlB (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP is not a database for membership secretaries... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Unless you're also planning to delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Planned_Parenthood, which also lists members of planned parenthood, then I don't see why you would delete the NRA list. The list has been around since 2006, and is quite populated. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a good comparison. Category:Planned Parenthood is an equivalent (at least in terms of WP categories!!) to Category:National Rifle Association rather than Category:National Rifle Association members. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, in fact it's a particularly bad comparison. I'm not proposing deletion of Category:National Rifle Association, just as I would not propose the deletion of Category:Planned Parenthood. How is this defining for JFK and Karl Malone? Can anyone answer that question? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hmm I'm striking my vote for now. The comparison with Category:Planned Parenthood is not a good one, but what about this: Category:Members_of_organizations which has things like Category:Mountain Club of South Africa members. Its a fine line - we seem to be ok classifying people who work for companies, or who are members of small groups that take action, but then we get to groups that can have thousands of members like the NRA and it starts to get less defining. So, we need guidance - what is the policy here or consensus on these sorts of groupings? If you give money to NRDC, they call you a 'member', but that doesn't seem to be defining; while Category:Bleus de Bretagne members does seem to be. So what makes membership defining?--KarlB (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting some of those categories up for deletion. For me it is a judgement call based on WP:CAT, WP:OC, WP:SMALLCAT and usability for readers, i.e. Those Whom We Serve. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed—most of these categories in Category:People by organization have simply not been nominated and discussed before. Until they are discussed, users are free to create whatever crap or cruft they want to. (Not that this category is necessarily crap or cruft—but some of the others certainly are.) I stand by my nomination—membership is not defining for these individuals, and it appears that those selected for inclusion have been selected with some political bias. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reporpose as Category:National Rifle Association people where the connection will be notable. Merely being a member of this group is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- don't like it... It will lump some members in with NRA past presidents and readers will not be able to ascertain why they are associated with the NRA. There is a Category:Presidents of the National Rifle Association and even that is pushing it in my opinion. The NRA article does not have a List of past presidents and yet there is a category. This is a common problem in WP. Easy things like creating categories and standalone lists is done but it is at the expense of actual prose or article structure. Oh, thats right, I forgot. We are all volunteers and we do what we want to do rather than what is needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am thinking just deleting the category would not be all bad. At present it is mainly functioning as category clutter. Most of the articles here are overwhelmed by having too many categories as it is. If US Grant, TR, Eisenhower, JFK and Palin all belonged to it, than it does not seem to me membership is at all defining. I am still not sure I believe JFK is correctly categorized here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wait, Moore and Palin are both in the NRA. Membership in it is clearly not defining then, well other than the fact that most of the people in it also fall under Category:American people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Planned Parenthood category is not open to anyone who has ever been a Planned Parenthood member, we limit it to people who are connected with Planned Parenthood in notable ways. Being a member of an organization like the NRA is a low commitment membership, it does not even try to change most of your life, so it is not worth categorizing people by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JPL, your argument that you don't like JFK being in the category is not a rationale to delete the entire category, especially if the evidence does support that he indeed was a member.Benkenobi18 (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be if it leads him to believe that membership is not defining for the individuals categorized in the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - My argument is this category has such diverse people in it that it clearly does not show a defining connection between the people and the organization. We do not have Category:Boy scouts of America members, and arguably being a boy scout is a larger time commitment than being in the NRA.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 7 May 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.

Members of German fraternities[edit]

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 CfD 2012 May 29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are categories for membership in Studentenverbindung, which are large German student corporations—kind of like North American student fraternities. Long ago we deleted the categories for student fraternities, and these German ones have popped up in the past year, created by the same editor, probably as a mirror to categorization that exists in the German WP. They are all non-defining and should be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete if these are all just fraternities, I agree to delete/listify if necessary. --KarlB (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other fraternity precedents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless I misunderstand, the significance of this in the 19th and early 20th century was very substantial, and might well have been defining to a greater extent than in the US. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain more. Given that membership in the fraternity is only rarely mentioned in the articles in question, I doubt their significance for the individuals. They are notable organizations, but membership in them is not generally defining for the members. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly listify or delete or keep, on a case by case basis, but I think more consideration is needed.

German student corps already exists as a list: List of members of German student corps.

Category:Kyffhäuserverband members doesn't even have a parent article. What is Kyffhäuserverband?

Landsmannschaft (Studentenverbindung) is relatively ancient, and possibly defining. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 24 May 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.

Category:Members of the Society of the Cincinnati[edit]

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) 10:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A category for group membership that is generally not defining for those included. I did a random test and looked at 10 of the articles included in the category. None of them mentioned membership in this group. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ this was a defining trait, even if the articles do not admit it. It was trying to become the backbone of an American nobility, and was a very disturbing development in the late 18th century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like an argument to support the notability and significance of the article Society of the Cincinnati, but not to support the category. It was no doubt significant as a movement, but not so much in the lives of the individual members. This is evident by the fact that it is rarely mentioned in the articles about the individuals. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

H Wikimania Takes Manhattanistorically important, and worth adding to articles when appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the above means in full; it was posted in this format and is not a comment that was subsequently mangled by other editors: [3]. If I'm interpreting it correctly it appears to be a sort of "keep" comment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

new vote, Delete. I have been convinced that membership is not defining, even though the organization itself was important.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 7 May 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.

Category:Celebrity Fit Club participants[edit]

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We usually delete categories that categorize participants in "celebrity" reality shows, because participating in the reality programme is not defining for the individuals. That's why they are "celebrities"—they are notable for something else, not for participating in reality TV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep despite the title many of the participants are not known for much else.RafikiSykes (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as? I can't find a single member in this category that is "not known for much else". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quickest one to mind is Tina Baker. an example from her article:"However she is probably most famous for appearing on ITV1's reality TV show, Celebrity Fit Club in which she lost a total of 2 stone, 7 pounds. She was voted by the panel of judges includingpolitician Ann Widdecombe, and tough marine trainer Harvey Walden as the most outstanding contestant on the show, due to her commitment and constant weight loss, each week."RafikiSykes (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - First line in Wendy kaufman - "Wendy Kaufman (born 1958) is an American best known for being the spokesperson for Snapple and for her two stints on Celebrity Fit Club."RafikiSykes (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tina Baker's lead says she is a "broadcaster and journalist and a leading British soap opera and TV critic". Kaufman was a product spokesperson. You said they are not known for much else—those seem like fairly significant things to be known for. It is likely they would have WP articles whether or not they appeared on the reality TV programme. It would be very weird indeed if contestants on a programme called "Celebrity Fit Club" were not known for something else prior to being on the programme. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we generally do not categorize people by show participated in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OC#Performers by performance venue - jc37 23:45, 22 May 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.

Category:DJs[edit]

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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:DJing to Category:Disc jockeying

Propose renaming Category:DJs to Category:Disc jockeys

Nominator's rationale: "DJs/DJing" is potentially confusing, and the main article is at Disc jockey. Spelling out instead of abbreviating/acronyming is desirable whenever possible, and I believe it would be much more encyclopedic here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose "Disc jockey" in full is somewhat archaic and DJ is by far the more common term in general use. The full form is favoured for the article, but the reasons for this (formality, avoiding inevitable acronym overlap) are much less convincing in the category namespace. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match article Disc jockey. It's not helpful to have category names use different terminology than the article name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Andy Dingley. Wherever the categories end up, there should be soft redirects from the other names. The redirects should avoid any problems coming from the article and category names not matching. LeSnail (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose agree that DJ is up to date wording.RafikiSykes (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match article Disc jockey. The reasons for full names in article space are even more convincing in category space. Oculi (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As are the reasons for clear and common names. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe it should be Category:deejays.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Deejay and deejaying currently distinguish a specific Jamaican meaning, separate from disc jockey. I have proposed a move to an unambiguous title. – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page DJ has to be expanded to disc jockey for disambiguation. However, there is no such ambiguity about the plural or the gerund. – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the rationale for the category name not matching the article? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until someone explains why it's confusing. In modern English, "DJ" is a hundredfold more common than "disc jockey". And I've never heard "disc jockeying" in my life. - filelake shoe 08:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose DJ is much more common.--KarlB (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at present the article is at Disc jockey. I am not sure if that is where it ought to be per common name rules, but that is where it is. So if we were to follow general category rules we would move the article. The butrden of proof is on those who do not want to rename to show why we should not follow the article name precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 7 May 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.

Category:Sin[edit]

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) 10:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Sin to Category:Sins

Nominator's rationale: Nomination on behalf of an IP editor who placed a merge tag here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first category covers the concept of sin, the latter includes examples of it; compare at Category:Crime and Category:Crimes, Category:Sculpture and Category:Sculptures, and countless others.- choster (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per choster. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Singulare tantum. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: in that case, Andy, wouldn't you be !voting for reverse merge? – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, because the specific Sins listed there have a more specific meaning, as individual, identified and characterised sins. If anything I might suggest merging Seven deadly sins into Sins (and of course their list article), because they're a prime case of a small, bounded set, per WP:SMALLCAT. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and consider adding deletionism to the second category. – Fayenatic London (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where do we categorise Cardinal Sin?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably alongside Doctor Syn Andy Dingley (talk) 09:21, 8 May 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.

Gays and lesbians[edit]

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/delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Gay singers to Category:LGBT singers

Propose merging Category:Gay composers to Category:LGBT composers

Propose merging Category:Gay DJs to Category:LGBT DJs

Propose merging Category:Lesbian broadcasters to Category:LGBT broadcasters

Propose merging Category:Lesbian musicians from the United States to Category:LGBT musicians from the United States

added may 3:

Nominator's rationale: overcategorization per norms. LGBT categories here are sufficient. In the Category:Musician category for example, there is an incredibly complex category tree; trying to replicate this would be quite difficult, and not replicating it (in other words, only 'weakly' categorizing these artists) is no better. Better to dual-classify them, e.g. Category:Blues singer-songwriters and Category:LGBT singers KarlB (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose renaming the lesbians. Lesbian implies a gender, LGBT loses that. We should preserve this distinction. "Gay" though is too confused in WP:ENGVAR issues for this implication to be so clear-cut. Also the patriarchal hegemony manages to over-represent itself anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have (and/or can create) gendered "Female X" categories where needed and warranted — with very few exceptions, we don't generally need or want to cross-pollinate by-gender categorization with the LGBT tree. The fact of being a lesbian doesn't, in and of itself, set them apart from other women broadcasters on the basis of having a different orientation, or from other LGBT broadcasters on the basis of being women — and we never, ever want articles funnelled down into subcategories that simultaneously separate for both an individual letter segment of the LGBT community and a nationality, as in Category:Lesbian musicians from the United States. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. All of these "imply a gender", since "gay" in the categorization system is used only for men. There have been numerous discussions about dividing LGBT categories into individual gay, lesbian, bi, and trans subcategories, and typically we've decided that that level of granularity is not desireable. I think that with these it's much more useful to have a category for all LGBT members of these professions than to subdivide by L, G, B, and T. I believe that has also been the general position of those active in the LGBT wikiproject. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. It's true that "gay" and "lesbian" imply a gender. It's also true that we don't classify other Djs according to gender mostly because it's not a meaningful characteristic. Pichpich (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep typical lgbt cats subcat structure eg gay writers within lgbt writers.RafikiSykes (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only for categories which would be excessively large if merged, such as "writers" — it is not generally desired or desirable in most cases. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am not convinced we should ever sub-cat LGBT unless there is some clear difference in the field that depends on one of these specific terms. Writers can be sub-catted by nationalities, genre, and other things without breaking up the LGBT structure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 7 May 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.

Category:Juggalos[edit]

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: speedy delete WP:CSD#G7 per category creator. Fayenatic london 19:59, 4 May 2012‎

Nominator's rationale: We don't need a fan category (created by a user with the same name no less). I'm sure it violates other guidelines, but here are a few: WP:OC#TRIVIAL, WP:OC#ASSOCIATED, WP:OC#OPINION. Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While we have the triple of Juggalo as an article, notable, articled, people falling within the grouping, and sourcing for each to verify this, I find no reason to delete the cat. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete being a fan of something, even an ardent fan, is not defining. Plus, a lot of these guys could really be here: Category:Juggalo_Championship_Wrestling. --KarlB (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fanship categories are never a good idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I stirred up controversy, but I assumed that because a Juggalo is considered a particular culture, then that culture should have a category for those who practice it. Keep (if I'm allowed to vote). Juggalo1010 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On my Talk page you left a note saying the characteristics of Juggalos "could easily be applied to a religious sect or an ethnic people". Don't you think that's just a bit of a stretch? Our article, in the lead, says they are fans. Apparently, as fans, they have some set of characteristics, but that could be true of any "club". The FBI apparently describes them as a "loosely-organized hybrid gang", with some groups of Juggalos "pos[ing] a threat to communities due to the potential for violence, drug use/sales, and their general destructive and violent nature." Even assuming they are more than just obsessed fans that have given themselves a name, it strikes me as hard to categorize people as belonging to them. Do we categorize people because they have some association with them? Card-carrying members? Attended one of their gatherings? The whole thing strikes me as inherently problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Do we categorize people because they have some association with them?" No, of course not - we do it because there are WP:RS that identify them as Juggalos, never because we identify them thus.

Incidentally, Category:Bloods, Category:Crips & Category:Gang members by affiliation. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Bbb23 is getting at is this: just because we can verifiably associate an individual with a group doesn't automatically mean that a category for that group is justified. From my reading of the articles included in the category, "membership" in this group is pretty peripheral to the people's notability. Certainly, none of them are notable because they are a Juggalo, so we're dealing with a matter that goes well beyond the quesiton of mere verifiability. This is where WP:DEFINING comes in. In those terms, how is this "defining"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point, but it is not what I was trying (apparently badly) to communicate. Categories have to be self-defining, meaning they must be obvious as to what support is needed in the article to justify the category. It's not clear to me what kind of support would be required here. As for Andy's point, my comment was shorthand - obviously, it's not up to us, it's up to the sources, but what do the sources have to say to justify inclusion?

A good case in point is the Charlie Sheen article, to which the category creator added the category and I removed it. The Sheen article says that Sheen hosted a gathering of the Juggalos. Assume that assertion is reliably sourced. Does that mean Sheen is a juggalo? I don't see why. Does it justify inclusion just because he associated with juggalos?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this isn't defining. Oculi (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote to delete. Please do so immediately. Juggalo1010 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 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.