Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 12



Category:World War II patrol craft of the United States

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. —  ξ xplicit  04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:World War II patrol craft of the United States to Category:World War II patrol vessels of the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. These two categories cover essentially the same types of vessels, but the proposed target has a more standard name, per one of its parent categories, Category:World War II patrol vessels. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Merge to match parent category's standard. Alansohn (talk) 00:43, 13 November 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:Hundreds

 * 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 Category:Hundreds to Category:Hundreds (county subdivision).  --  X damr  talk 20:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Hundreds to Category:Hundreds (country subdivision)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the lead article and remove the ambiguity from the name. When I saw this I wondered if we have a category to discuss hundred dollar bills.  Then I wondered if we have a category that was grouping by like names.  Well it turned out to be something else entirely. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Rename to match title of parent article and to more clearly describe the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Rename ditto. Declan Clam (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No: Rename to Category:Hundreds (county subdivision). Each English county was made up of various hundreds (except where they were wapentakes, rapes, lathes or wards).  You cannot have a hundred split between counties.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC) (an English historian)
 * But see the main article. We are not just talking about England here, although I think in fact the same is true of Scandinavia, Australia etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with rename. Do not know whether "county" or "country" is better. I would suggest that the article be renamed accordingly, if we'd decide on "Hundreds (county subdivision)". Debresser (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Hundreds (county subdivision), if we are sure they all are, which I think is the case. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 15 November 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.

Trinidad and Tobago

 * 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:Tobagonian sportspeople to Category:Trinidad and Tobago sportspeople and Category:People from Tobago
 * Category:Tobagonian musicians to Category:Trinidad and Tobago musicians and Category:People from Tobago
 * Rename
 * Category:Tobagonian people to Category:People from Tobago
 * Category:Trinidadian albums to Category:Trinidad and Tobago albums
 * Category:Trinidadian styles of music to Category:Trinidad and Tobago styles of music
 * -- X damr  talk 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Relisted for further comment from Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 24 --  X damr  talk 21:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Tobagonian people to Category:Trinidad and Tobago people
 * Suggest merging Category:Tobagonian sportspeople to Category:Trinidad and Tobago sportspeople
 * Suggest merging Category:Tobagonian musicians to Category:Trinidad and Tobago musicians
 * Propose renaming Category:Trinidadian albums to Category:Trinidad and Tobago albums
 * Propose renaming Category:Trinidadian styles of music to Category:Trinidad and Tobago styles of music
 * Nominator's rationale: Standard naming for the country of Trinidad and Tobago, per the parent categories Category:Trinidad and Tobago people and Category:Trinidad and Tobago music. Tassedethe (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Support the renamings, oppose the mergings (but see suggested alternative). I see no reason why people from Tobago shouldn't have their own category as a subcategory of the T&T ones - it's no more bizarre than, say, having, or. Their size, and the analogous category names do, however, suggest that some renaming and upmerging may be in order:
 * Rename Category:Tobagonian people to Category:People from Tobago
 * Upmerge Category:Tobagonian sportspeople to Category:Trinidad and Tobago sportspeople and Category:People from Tobago
 * Upmerge Category:Tobagonian musicians to Category:Trinidad and Tobago musicians and Category:People from Tobago

Grutness...wha?  23:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename all per nominator and multiiple recent precedent. Debresser (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support the Grutness approach: yes to renamings, but merges not necessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Category:Tobagonian people or rename to Category:People from Tobago. Support renaming in the last two proposals of the nom. Merge Category:Tobagonian sportspeople into both its parent categories. Merge Category:Tobagonian musicians into both its parent categories. This seems to be Grutness' 2nd choice, but that is not completely clear. User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 04:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was very clear, but still. You're right that that is my second suggestion, with a definite rename of "Tobagonian" to "from Tobago", per all other non-sovereign island categories. Grutness...wha?  01:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Grutness. I was about to propose something similar before I read through all the replies. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename 'Tobagonian people' to 'People from Tobago', Tobagonian sportspeople' to 'Sportspeople from Tobago' and 'Tobagonian musicians' to 'Musicians from Tobago'  but DO NOT MERGE. Not WP:OC in my view where 'Rock musicians from Tobago' or 'Cricketers from Tobago' would be Mayumashu (talk) 05:05, 14 November 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:Chuvashs

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. —  ξ xplicit  04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging Category:Chuvashs to Category:Chuvash people
 * Nominator's rationale: Both of these categories list people of Chuvash ethnic background. Ali Savatar 21:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support nomination. Use of 'people' semantically clearer Mayumashu (talk) 05:08, 14 November 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:Chuvashian poets

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. —  ξ xplicit  04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Chuvashian poets to Category:Chuvash poets
 * Nominator's rationale: Right now the category sounds as if it refers to geographical location (Chuvashia) rather than language or ethnicity (Chuvash). Ali Savatar 20:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The parent category, Category:Poets by nationality, uses adjectives. So should this category. Debresser (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator. After a user pointed out to me on my talkpage that "the word "Chuvash" is an adjective that refers to nationality, while "Chuvashian" is an adjective that refers to Republic of Chuvashia". Debresser (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 12:03, 15 November 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:Climate crisis

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. —  ξ xplicit  04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * climate crisis


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. No description, and, as far as I can tell, only used by the 99. anon, so there's no one to ask about a potential characterization.  Perhaps merge into Category:Climate change, if not already in Category:Global warming or Category:Effects of global warming. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * delete not useful William M. Connolley (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * delete Weasel-worded, poorly-defined, and included articles are generally included in other relevant categories. Awickert (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Category:Climate change and the other ones brought up by nominator are the correct places for this. This one is redundant. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sensationalist and redundant. --P LUMBAGO  08:15, 13 November 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:United States Air Force ships

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Air Force ships to Category:Ships of the United States Air Force
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the naming style of other ships by "navy" (This category was itself not properly categorized, so I missed it when making a recent, related nomination.) — Bellhalla (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support rename for consistency. Mjroots (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Rename to match standard used in the parent categories. Alansohn (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator, and cited previous discussion. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 14 November 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:One Night Stand
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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:WWE Extreme Rules. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:One Night Stand to Category:Extreme Rules
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the current title of parent article WWE Extreme Rules which was recently moved from WWE One Night Stand.  Θaks  ter   12:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:WWE Extreme Rules to match full title of parent article and provide greater clarity of its contents. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:WWE Extreme Rules per Alansohn. Present title is ambiguous. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 14 November 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:Public benefit corporations in Pennsylvania
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * public benefit corporations in pennsylvania


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty category. These organizations don't exist. In Pennsylvania, Public benefit corporations are called Municipal authority (Pennsylvania). There's already a category for that: Category:Municipal authorities in Pennsylvania.Blargh29 (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete empty category that appears to serve no purpose in aiding navigation across articles. Alansohn (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that you just emptied it, for instance with this edit. I have no opinion on the renaming, but this wasn't the appropriate way to do it. --NE2 11:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I emptied it, because SEPTA is not a public benefit corporation. That category was wrong. Like I said in my nomination: there are no public benefit corporations in Pennsylvania. Only municipal authorities. I explained that when I removed that category ("SEPTA is a municipal authority, not public benefit corporaton"). Also, I added a cite for that fact. So, yeah, it was totally appropriate. Are we supposed to leave factually incorrect categories floating around while we wait for CFD?--Blargh29 (talk) 23:30, 15 November 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:Ballhawk
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ballhawk


 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Ballhawks or delete. I'm not really sure what to propose to do with this. There is no article Ballhawk, so it seems having a category could be premature. On the other hand, this seems to be the main claim to notability of John Witt. At the same time, it's probably unlikely that there are any other articles to add to the category at this time. If kept, it needs to be renamed to pluralize it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete the category has no corresponding article and does not seem to be expanding in the immediate future based on my search of sources. As there is only one article, this is also not much of an aid to navigation. This category should be recreated once the necessary criteria are met without the usual and customary prejudice. Alansohn (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't know what this is, but a search on Wikipedia did not reveal anything that could justify a category. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 14 November 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:Bosnian heavy metal musical groups
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Bosnian heavy metal musical groups to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina heavy metal musical groups
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose using standard adjective for categories relating to B-H. If renamed it will match parent . Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Rename to match standard used by parent. Alansohn (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 14 November 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:AIADMK politicians
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:AIADMK politicians to Category:All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam politicians
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation to match main article All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No objection I created it under the current title as AIADMK is more commonly used than the full name, but since it's an acronym, I don't have an issue with it being renamed to the full name. - Spaceman  Spiff  02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just suggesting it be renamed to match the article. If AIADMK is more common, maybe the article should be renamed to that? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, a typical newspaper report would refer to the party as "All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam" (at least in the first instance), but refer to a politician as "an AIADMK MLA" or "AIADMK Member of Parliament" and so on. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other on the category name, but the article is at the correct title. Whatever name is chosen, I hope we can get a redirect from the other (I don't know enough about cats to know if that's possible). - Spaceman  Spiff  02:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 14 November 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:Suicide sites
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 keep arguments seem to say that we need reliable sources for inclusion.  Well, we can't do that with categories.  You can do that in a list which already exists.  So this is basically a listify close to the existing list. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * suicide sites


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. It's probably trite to say that suicide can happen anywhere. This category is probably intended to groups places where suicides are "common". The problem is, how common does suicide need to be at the site to be included? What sort of criterion could avoid being arbitrary? I think this is much better suited to this list, where we don't have to worry about setting an arbitrary cut-off. Note that some of the articles now included don't even mention the fact that suicides have taken place there, so it's probably not defining in these cases. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Conceivably suitable for a category, but not yet.  List of suicide sites is in a pretty dubious state.  The definition of a "suicide site" should come first.  Looking at two examples with high numbers, Niagara Falls only has a trivial mention of the word and The Gap, New South Wales, which is notable as a suicide site, has no real commentary on the site being a suicide site.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Let's use reliable and verifiable sources and see how they define these sites relative to suicide as a defining characteristic. "Struggling to Prevent Suicides at Tappan Zee" from The New York Times seems to place the Tappan Zee Bridge firmly in this category, as would "San Franciscans Try Again to Suicide-Proof the Golden Gate Bridge" for the Golden Gate Bridge. "On a Bridge of Sighs, the Suicidal Meet a Staying Hand" would cover the Nanjing Yangtze River Bridge, which has yet to be added to the category. I've added the category to Sunshine Skyway Bridge, which includes a section on the suicide issue, and is supported by such sources as "On Florida Bridge, Troopers Are Also Suicide Counselors". My two minute search in one publication found multiple sources. A small amount of additional effort will address the remainder, adding reliable and verifiable sources to the articles to describe the suicide issue. If there any genuine concerns regarding particular entries, that should be discussed on the talk page for the article in question, not used as an excuse to delete the category as a whole. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So if we can find a reliable source that states that one suicide—a particular suicide—has taken place somewhere, would it be included? If not, how about two? Where do we draw the line? If we draw the line at one vs. zero, that hardly captures a defining characteristic of the place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no numeric cutoff. The standard is descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources, as I have supplied above for several of the category's entries from a rather cursory search in one source. Do you have any meaningful challenge to these sources, all of which address the suicide problem at these sites as the primary subject of the articles? How tall does a building have to be to merit inclusion in Category:Skyscrapers in Paris? Just how much LGBT content is necessary to be included in Category:LGBT-related television episodes. As with all of Wikipedia, reliable and verifiable sources are the standard, not any arbitrary cutoff. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If one is enough as long as it is in reliable sources, I would say this is then capturing a non-defining feature of the places. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the articles describe all of these sites as the location of major clusters of suicides, not just one. All of the articles that I've cited above define these places as suicide sites and describe efforts to help prevent further recurrences. I do appreciate the efforts at crafting a straw man, but there is no numeric cutoff, not 1 or 10 or 100 suicides. The standard is descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources and all of these sources define these places as suicide sites. Perhaps you ought to look at the sources rather than try to insist that one suicide qualifies an article for inclusion. How tall does a building have to be to merit inclusion in Category:Skyscrapers in Paris? Just how much LGBT content is necessary to be included in Category:LGBT-related television episodes. As with all of Wikipedia, reliable and verifiable sources are the standard, not any arbitrary numeric cutoff. Alansohn (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring to your sources. I'm referring to a hypothetical situation, which I believe is in fact in play for some of the current contents of the category. Sometimes you have to go beyond thinking about the blazingly obvious. You seem to have misunderstood me: I'm not insisting that one suicide qualifies—I was asking you if you thought it did. I don't think it does. And that leads to the problem of where to place the cut-off; therefore WP:OC is relevant. But if someone says one is enough (which is reasonable under your criteria, because it's simple to point to reliable sources that say a specific suicide happened in a specific place), that raises the question as whether this would then be defining for the place. It's a two-pronged argument; possibly difficult to understand because it depends on what pre-conceptions you adopt. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How tall does a building have to be to be in Category:Skyscrapers in Paris? Is 300 feet in, but 299 out? If a one-storey building is excluded doesn't that gut this whole category? If you pick any cutoff, your argument is that the category is arbitrary and therefor must be deleted. How many shots must you take at a hoop to be eligible for Category:American basketball players? What percentage of African ancestry must one have to be in Category:African Americans? Do Barack Obama or Halle Berry belong in the category based on their ancestry? Is there a one-drop rule or is there a defined percentage of African-ness, say 50%? I have no difficulty understanding your argument, I'm just not sure that you realize that you are pursuing an approach that would have thosuands upon thousands of categories deleted, with no particular relevance to this one. Wikipedia depends on reliable and verifiable sources and I hope that you're not arguing that the Golden Gate Bridge, Sunshine Skyway Bridge, and Tappan Zee Bridge don't belong in this category based on the sources provided. If you have a question about a site where there was a single suicide belonging in this category, the place to discuss that is on the specific article's talk page. WP:OC is not relevant for this category or any of the categories I've discussed here. My only preconception is that the standard is reliable and verifiable sources defining the location as a suicide site and I am utterly unconcerned about your ludicrous hypothetical case as a rationalization to delete the entire category. It's a rather simple argument that can't possibly be too difficult to understand. Alansohn (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've said nothing about those other categories; I think they are beyond the scope of this discussion. I guess we disagree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the collapsed discussion above, Alansohn says "All of the articles describe all of these sites as the location of major clusters of suicides, not just one." I assume that Alansohn wasn't referring to the articles in the category, but to the newspaper articles he was using as sources.  I say this because the articles in the category do not all describe the sites as the location of major clusters of suicides. Vienna U-Bahn has no mention at all of suicide, apart from the category, and on checking the history back to April 2009, has never had any mention of suicide in the article (a suicide-related category was added in this edit by an anon in April 2009).  White cliffs of Dover mentions the fictional Earl of Gloucester in "King Lear" intending to commit suicide at Dover, but he does not. Suicide is otherwise not mentioned in the article, and hasn't since at least April 2009 when a suicide-related category was added by the same anon in this edit. BencherliteTalk 09:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My mention of "All of the articles describe all of these sites as the location of major clusters of suicides" is to the sources I had initially identified. As with all categories, some articles have been improperly categorized, an issue that can be readily addressed by removing the category from articles where there are no sources to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up the category and removed it from those articles where the site is not described as a location of a suicide cluster, which included the Hollywood Sign and the Vienna U-Bahn. I have also removed the category from the White Cliffs of Dover, an article where suicide is only tangentially mentioned, and which may well have been included because of Beachy Head, one of the UK's most notorious suicide sites. The remaining articles provide descriptions to document their status as a suicide site, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete How many places are notable for this? Because suicides happen at millions of locations. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dozens. Of all the millions of places where people have ever committed suicide, these are all described in the articles themselves and backed by multiple reliable and verifiable sources as the site of multiple suicides over an ongoing period of years. Some of these sites have been the location of several hundred suicides over a period of decades, numbering to as many as several dozen per year. There are millions of people who have ever played basketball, but very few of them are included in Category:Basketball players. Just as we include in that category only those people defined for playing basketball, this category includes those places that are defined by being sites of suicides. Alansohn (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Suicide clusters are very rare, restricted to a few bridges or tall buildings. So long as reliable sources name them ofr clusters, I don't see a problem. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a topic which is not a suitable basis for categorization, for one of two reasons:
 * If we attempt to impose an objective and verifiable inclusion standard (i.e., a minimum threshold), then that standard will inevitably be arbitrary. Should we consider the number of actual suicides, the number of suicides per year (or over a period of X years), the number of suicides per 100,000 population, the number of suicides per 100,000 population per year, the number of suicides per m2 ... a combination of these, all of these, none of these? While any of these choices can form the basis of a verifiable category, the actual choice of any one of them ultimately would be completely arbitrary.
 * If we defer to reliable sources, then we avoid the issue of arbitrariness but encounter problems of subjectivity and comparability. A reporter in a town of 1,000 people could describe a site that is the location of 5 suicides over a period of 5 years as a "suicide site" just as a reporter in a city of 1,000,000 people could describe a site that is the location of 10 suicides over a period of 5 years as a "suicide site". However, the incidence of suicide at the two sites is hardly comparable (1 suicide per 1,000 people per year versus 1 suicide per 500,000 people per year). If a single source is enough to place an article into this category, then it loses its defining-ness. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 09:17, 22 November 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.