Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 3



Category:Dioecious plants

 * 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. If there are concerns about it being oversized, then it could, possibly, become a container category (see Category:Jet aircraft, for instance), but consenus appears to be for keep regardless of size. The Bushranger One ping only 23:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * dioecious plants


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is unhelpful, will be far too large, and is already populated by misplaced articles. It is equivalent to a category for animal species with separate males and females.  Even for plants, this is a huge percentage and could result in more than 100,000 members.  This would be better handled by an organized list. EncycloPetey (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I saw the new category pop up on my watchlist and noticed the misapplication, but that's not a reason to delete. I disagree that it isn't helpful and it seems a perfectly natural category as it describes a major component of a plant's life history. As for scope, it won't be too large. In angiosperms, the largest plant clade, the estimate is that only 6% of plants are dioecious, and many of those can be categorized by the genus article since all members of the genus are dioecious, e.g. instead of adding the category to all ~120 Nepenthes articles, we'd only add it to the genus article, but that has to be carefully applied since there are many genera where dioecy is present in most but not all species. Rkitko (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Won't be too large? 6% of 250,000 is still 15,000 species, and that's an estimate only for the angiosperms. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if only included on genus articles where all members are dioecious, that significantly reduces the number of articles this would need to be applied to. 400 species of willow would be represented by one article in the category. I still don't think this is unmanageable. Rkitko (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Why would this category be considered for deletion? It is a very important category as dioecious plants are a minority in the plant kingdom. I've spent a lot of time populating this category with notable genera and species. It is very important to group these plants together for understanding plant sexuality, plant evolution, breeding and cultivation, and the conservation of many plant species.--99.68.137.198 (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Being a minority does not make them "important". Spending a lot of time on something is not a reason against deletion.  You assert that it is an important group to have, but that doesn't mean the category is needed; this is better handled through a list than a category.  For one, a list would require far less monitoring for miss-appliaction. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The solution for an overlarge category is the creation of subcategories, not deletion. Inclusion criteria are clear, and if I understand Dioecy correctly, the status of being dioecious is quite defining.  Nyttend (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a legitimate category, even if it may be a large one. I am not a botanist, but assume there are some gnera or even families where all members belong to the category.  In that case, it should be the highest possible taxononic classifiaction (if I have the correct term) that appears, or a category for it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also, it will take huge amount of time and effort to be completed and be of very little use to readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You must have a very low opinion of our readers; many of our readers that would use this category are botanists, amateur or professional. Time and effort are not valid reasons to delete something. Rkitko (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2011 (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:Godzilla comic 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * godzilla comic characters


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. I believe that each of these characters has appeared in many other titles beyond the Marvel Comics Godzilla title. If there were categories for every title in which a character appeared or was central or supporting, popular characters could end up in huge numbers of worthless categories. There are a small number of characters by protagonist categories but the characters so categorized are isolated within their own continuities and don't interact or cross over into multiple titles the way that Marvel's "Godzilla characters" do. 70.226.163.210 (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge somehow. I note that there is no Category:Godzilla comics, which would seem to point to merger with Category:Godzilla characters.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really address the issue that these aren't "Godzilla characters" in the way that, say, Godzilla Junior or Rodan are and that they cross over and can potentially be categorized as characters of multiple protagonists. 76.201.154.20 (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2011 (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:American housekeepers

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * american housekeepers


 * Nominator's rationale: ??? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Waek keep -- Housekeeper is a legitimate occupation, and we have one decent bio in the cat. Florence Martus is not mentioned ot be a housekeeper in her article, so that I would query her inclusion.  The problem is that most housekeepers will be NN, or derive notability only through the famous person they kept house for, which would be "inherited" notability, which we do not acknowledge in WP.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2011 (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:Fictional characters by nationality

 * 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 subcategories haven't been tagged so are best nominated separately. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * fictional characters by nationality


 * Nominator's rationale: Firstly, I'm sorry that I haven't tagged any of the subcategories yet; I'll come back and do that later. I just noticed that this category and its subcategories is a virtual duplicate of those deleted at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 23. Consensus then was strongly against categorising fictional characters by their nationality, for good reasons; I'd be surprised to find consensus has changed in three years, but it's been long enough that we should discuss it again. Even if others think this structure is worth keeping, I do think there's something particularly odd about the way it includes fictional members of real nationalities like Category:Fictional American people alongside fictional members of fictional ones like Category:Fictional Atlanteans. Robofish (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and precedent. Are there any real Atlanteans? If so, that would be good cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete according to the precedent cited. Atlantis is a mythical land, so that there cannot be any real inhabitants.  AS an ancient myth, I expect that a lot of authors have set works there or had chracters from there.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My kneejerk reaction was to say "no, stop!" but on further reflection, I think this category structure descends into trivia or obviousness because the subcategories would just end up being flooded by just about all of the fictional characters from that particular culture. The way in which this topic is interesting and useful is when the fiction of one culture depicts the people of another: Category:Fictional French people in American culture, etc.  So that might be a worthwhile category structure (or series of lists) to attempt.
 * Categories for "fictional nationalities" (e.g., Category:Genoshans) should not be deleted, however, but should simply be removed. There isn't much use in grouping together all fictional characters just because they are from fictional countries, particularly not when those settings are more meaningfully grouped together in the Category:Fictional countries structure if it is significant enough.  Re: Category:Fictional Atlanteans, the "fictional" qualifier is necessary to distinguish the included articles from portrayals in legend, folklore, or myth, with those terms referring to categories of literature rather than a redundant splitting of various kinds of "untrue"; see also Category:Fictional mermen and mermaids, Category:Fictional vampires, etc., which exist for the same reasons.  postdlf (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2011 (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:American college football team season navigational boxes

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * american college football team season navigational boxes


 * Nominator's rationale: All of the navbox templates that used to reside in this category have been redirected or re-purposed to navbox templates now residing at Category:American college football team navigational boxes, so this category is no longer needed. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2011 (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.