Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 12



Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles parodies

 * 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.  --  X damr  talk 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * teenage mutant ninja turtles parodies


 * Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category and OR. Are either of these really parodies? Are there more of this sort to even warrant a category? Adolesecent Radioactive may be notable, but I prodded C-BCC and redirected Pre Teen 'roos. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Relevant precedents for the deletion of superhero "pastiches" are here and here, though parodies are narrower than pastiches, and TMNT cultural references are likely to be less pervasive and easier to identify than Superman references. Postdlf (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a very small category with little perspective, and per first argument of nominator (overly small intersection, which is connected to my argument) as well. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As there are so few pages in the category, it would make more sense to simply list them on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles page itself. If at some future time there are a great many more parodies that have their own pages, the argument can be made for the category to be brought back again. Wrightaway (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

WikiProjects using XXX-Class in their grading scheme

 * 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 all.  --  X damr  talk 00:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * wikiprojects using cat-class in their grading scheme


 * wikiprojects using dab-class in their grading scheme


 * wikiprojects using future-class in their grading scheme


 * wikiprojects using image-class in their grading scheme


 * wikiprojects using list-class in their grading scheme


 * wikiprojects using na-class in their grading scheme


 * wikiprojects using portal-class in their grading scheme


 * wikiprojects using redirect-class in their grading scheme


 * wikiprojects using project-class in their grading scheme


 * wikiprojects using template-class in their grading scheme


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories are superfluous and don't seem to be used. To see which WikiProjects are using Future-Class, for example, you can just look in Category:Future-Class articles. Furthermore, some of the names of these classes are not widely used (e.g. Dab instead of Disambig, Cat instead of Category). &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: These categories were originally created to track the usage of non-standard assessment classes where changes are to be made to the grading template (and to, if needed, be able to contact said wikiprojects). This is extremely difficult to do, as proposed above, via Category:Future-Class articles (for instance) as they do not necessarily match/are not necessarily in use. There may be a more elegant solution, however. G.A.S talk 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did some research: These categories were created following this discussion where the assessment grading scheme required updating, but it was unsure how many Wikiprojects would be affected. I also found this guide with regards to monitoring parameter usage. Can the template be updated accordingly? This functionality is useful, even if it only categorises a few pages. G.A.S talk 06:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at that conversation, it seems that these categories were only a temporary measure to find out which projects were using particular parameters of the Template:grading scheme so that the template could be updated without upsetting people. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'd say the categories may be safely deleted if the alternative method is utilised. G.A.S talk 07:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, that is, the low importance of this type of categorising, as testified to by the fact that not used extensively. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I created those categories for the purpose Martin describes above. They've served their purpose, and if they are not useful now, then I'd say delete. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 04:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: With this edit, I deopulated these categories. If this discussion somehow ends with "keep", this will need reverting. Otherwise, the categories should be fairly empty now. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:African American Secretaries of State

 * 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.  --  X damr  talk 00:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * african american secretaries of state


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete, overly narrow intersection of race/ethnicity and political office. To date, there have been two (Powell and Rice), and though one hopes and expects there will be more, it's not useful to subdivide such a specific occupational category by race/ethnicity because: 1) if not included in the parent categories, Category:United States Secretaries of State and Category:African American politicians, it would segregate these articles by race within the Secretary of State category and force readers to navigate that position through this trait alone, and 2) if it is also included in the parent categories, it would be a redundant pairing and provide no added categorization benefit for the articles. Both Powell and Rice are already included in the parents so no merging is required, which also further supports that this is too specific to be useful as a category, where people would obviously miss the articles if they weren't included in those parents.  An alternative might be to create Category:African American members of the Cabinet of the United States, which is a more substantial grouping and not overly narrow, though a featured list already exists.  Postdlf (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with nominator — note that WP:CATGRS explicitly spells out that for exactly this reason, one should never create an EGRS subcategory for a category that isn't otherwise subdividable on other grounds as well. A category for all African American cabinet members would certainly be valid, but a category for African American holders of one specific cabinet position isn't useful — for exactly the same reason as an "African American governors of US states" would be valid, but an "African American governors of one specific state" wouldn't be. Repurpose as proposed and add the others; to me, this is a case where category-plus-list is probably more useful than just one or the other. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator Debresser (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, too narrow. feydey (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary race/ethnic cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Surfing locations by country/region

 * 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.  --  X damr  talk 00:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Surfing locations in South Africa to Category:Surfing locations of South Africa
 * Propose renaming Category:Surfing locations in Australia to Category:Surfing locations of Australia
 * Propose renaming Category:Surfing locations in New Zealand to Category:Surfing locations of New Zealand
 * Propose renaming Category:Surfing locations in Indonesia to Category:Surfing locations of Indonesia
 * Propose renaming Category:Surfing locations in the United Kingdom to Category:Surfing locations of the United Kingdom
 * Propose renaming Category:Surfing locations in England to Category:Surfing locations of England
 * Propose renaming Category:Surfing locations in Cornwall to Category:Surfing locations of Cornwall
 * Propose renaming Category:Surfing locations in Canada to Category:Surfing locations of Canada
 * Propose renaming Category:Surfing locations in the United States to Category:Surfing locations of the United States
 * Propose renaming Category:Surfing locations in Hawaii to Category:Surfing locations of Hawaii
 * Propose renaming Category:Surfing locations in California to Category:Surfing locations of California
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I played a major role in (mis)naming these, I'm afraid. I believe "of" is a much more suitable preposition than "in" for these categories. Some of the big wave breaks categorized here can actually be a mile or two off the coast, therefore not "in" the land area at all. This rename also has the benefit of more closely matching the "Beaches of..." categories, which are master cats for these. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While noting that the question I raise is outside the scope of this CFD to determine, is it proper to categorize a place by what some people have at some time done there? I'm not doubting that there are places known as surfing locations, but they are presumably known as locations for other activities as well, and that a location is used for surfing may not define the location for anyone besides surfers.  Is there a broader structure for this kind of "Places by activities performed there" kind of categorization?  Postdlf (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this answers your question, but I have also made this a subcat of the Sports venues by location categories, which does, in a sense, group "locations" by sporting activities. People can and do partake in a range of activities at beaches, but surf breaks that are encyclopedically notable are a subset. I would argue argue that it's a similar situation to Category:Ski areas and resorts by country, strange as I know that sounds. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The sports venues categories are for stadiums, arenas, etc., which are facilities specifically constructed for human use. The same is true of ski areas and resorts, which are areas demarcated and altered for that purpose no less than a golf course. Categorizing something as broad as a settlement or a beach based on one use seems to me very different. Postdlf (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I knew that was a bad example, even as I was making it. Thing is, there are a number of articles in this category that aren't notable for any thing other than surfing: Mavericks, cited below; Jaws (beach), The Wedge (surfing), Teahupo'o, etc. These wouldn't even be named were it not for surfing: they'd be some anonymous big wave. That said, most articles do fit into the broader category of beaches or reef breaks that would still merit articles independent of surfing. But I for one still believe a notable surf break is a defining characteristic of a beach, reef or even standing wave, provided it can be backed up with reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indifferent This is not an important enough difference to start renaming. Debresser (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose changing to neutral - see below. If you're arguing that it's a ssimilar situation to the skiing categories, please note that they are all in the form - not "of Foo". Similarly other sports venues are "in" not "of". Admittedly surfing is an unusual case, as these locations are natural, not man-made, but if you're looking for consistency we should use "in" here, too. Grutness...wha?  23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I raised the ski hills thing only as an example of a category related to activites on a natural formation. I did also point out that Category:Beaches of California is a master cat for Category:Surfing locations in California, where "of" works quite nicely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And again, Mavericks (location) is located a half mile off the coast. Is it "in" California? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken on the last point, but not on the point about beaches, which is for a different reason -actually the same reason that I opposed the move in the first place (natural features are "of", human-made features and human uses of natural features are "in"). I do agree that it sounds odd that somewhere offshore should be listed as being "in" a place, though, so I'm moving to neutral. Grutness...wha? 
 * Keep all If we want to be technical about it, every littoral country claims the ocean around it as territorial waters for a minimum of 3 nautical miles, so I see no problem at all placing a surf break "in" one country or another. FWIW, I would have the Beaches category renamed instead. -choster (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Natural landforms are always "of" by Wikipedia naming conventions. Which is part of the concern in this nomination - do surfing breaks count as natural features or human uses of natural features (which use "in")? Grutness...wha?  02:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Islands in the Shetland Islands

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Islands of Shetland.  --  X damr  talk 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Islands in the Shetland Islands to Category:Islands of Shetland
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. A very cumbersome title, and although "Shetland Islands" is not generally considered to be incorrect, "Shetland" is the name of the archipelago and Council area. See Shetland and Talk:Shetland. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support rename which will also sit more comfortably with the related Category:Parishes of Shetland and Category:Uninhabited islands of Shetland. AllyD (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support rename I originally created this category, and the proposed new name is much better. SP-KP (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support rename per above. Occuli (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator and Ben  Debresser (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The current title is unnecessarily redundant. Jafeluv (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.

Subcategories of Alternate versions of comics characters

 * 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:


 * Category:Alternate versions of Superman to Category:Superman
 * Category:Alternate versions of the Fantastic Four to Category:Fantastic Four


 * -- X damr  talk 00:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * alternate versions of superman


 * alternate versions of the fantastic four


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Both are extremely limited subsets of what is an uncluttered, manageable category. Even looking at the other parents - Category:Superman and Category:Fantastic Four - there is no solid reason split these minimal sets off. J Greb (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The first one has substantial contents in its subcat Category:Superman in other media. What does the nom propose to do with these? Category:Alternate versions of the Fantastic Four (0 subcats, 3 articles, all already in the other parent) could be upmerged to Category:Fantastic Four without any great loss. Occuli (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the material in AV Superman... The single character articles were pulled out of the Superman parent article, where the IOM sub is also still housed. The articles can be merged up to both parent categories. And at best, a link place on Category:Alternate versions of comics characters pointing to Category:Alternate versions of comics characters should suffice, not the subbing that was done at the same time as the 2 nommed cats were made. - J Greb (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK - I see the new ones are very recent and can be deleted without loss. Occuli (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Bilderberg Attendees

 * 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 precedent and as a trivial categorisation.  --  X damr  talk 00:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Bilderberg Attendees to Category:Bilderberg attendees
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To meet standard capitalization guidelines. Teahot (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedily agree "Capitalisation fixes" is #2 of the speedy criteria.Debresser (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - attending a Bilderberg conference is a trivial basis for categorization. A similar category was deleted a few years back. Otto4711 (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivial, per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's also true... Debresser (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.