Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 17



Category:People from Graysville, Tennessee

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:People from Graysville, Tennessee to Category:People from Rhea County, Tennessee
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with just one entry. ...William 23:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep category. Graysville is a real place that is still recognized. The category is a valid classification and it is reasonable to expect that it could grow. The entries in the county category are people who are identifiable by county, but cannot be pinned to a specific named place, plus one person who is associated with a named place that is no longer identifiable as a place. --Orlady (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not every place that exists necessarily needs its own separate "People from..." category; CFD has a longstanding consensus that separate categories by individual town or city should only be created when Wikipedia already has a reasonable number of articles to file in them (a minimum of between five and ten is a good rule of thumb), and should not be kept on the basis of how reasonable it is or isn't to expect that it could grow in the future. If and when the number of appropriate entries does grow enough to warrant a category, then it can be recreated — but we don't keep categories just because they might grow. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per nominator. The category can be recreated in the future if and when Wikipedia actually does have a reasonable number of articles to file in it — but we do not need or want individual "People from Town" categories which only have one entry in them. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2013 (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.

Years in New Zealand cricket

 * 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 to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting
 * Category:2009 in New Zealand cricket, Category:2010 in New Zealand cricket, Category:2011 in New Zealand cricket

Nominator's rationale: Cricket in New Zealand is a summer sport with each season spanning two years, see Category:Seasons in New Zealand cricket; so does not need a “by year” category as well. The items are already in the season categories Category: 2009–10 New Zealand cricket season and Category: 2010–11 New Zealand cricket season, which should all be parented directly on Category:2009 in New Zealand sport etc. Hugo999 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC) I really do wish that editors would check this sort of thing before blindly proposing a deletion which would orphan a set of pages. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC) What Dweller appears to be seeking in this case is two separate annual categories for New Zealand cricket, one running by calendar year and one by domestic cricket season. If the aim to separate domestic cricket from international competitions, then the categories should be renamed to reflect this; if not, then the categories should be merged. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC) The current titles apparently reflect the terminology used within cricket circles, where cricket fans presumably know that there is an implicit "domestic" in the title. However, Wikipedia is written for a general audience rather than a specialist readership of cricket fans, so so extra clarity is needed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to both parents. The nominator is right that these categs are superfluous, but they should be upmerged rather than deleted. For example, Category:2009 in New Zealand cricket should be merged to both Category:2009 in New Zealand sport and Category:2010 in cricket.
 * As I said the few articles in this three categories would not be orphaned because they are already in the appropriate NZ "cricket season" category (actually except for Tri-Series in Sri Lanka in 2009), hence I proposed deleting not upmerging or downmerging Hugo999 (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree it's confusing, but the categories under review shouldn't just contain articles about the New Zealand season, but also the performance of the various New Zealand teams who travel the world each year outside of the New Zealand season. So, for example, the imminent series in England (article) belongs in the yet-to-be-created Category:2013 in New Zealand cricket but not in either of the possible 2013 New Zealand season articles. For example, the article 2010–11 Ashes series refers to a series that took place in Australia, outside of the English cricket season, yet it rightly appears in both Category:2010 in English cricket and Category:2011 in English cricket. --Dweller (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. English cricket is a poor parallel, because the English cricket season is contained within one calendar year.
 * I gave English cricket as a good example, because it's simpler to understand. It doesn't just work for international cricket. It would apply equally, for example, for New Zealand domestic teams performing in invitational 20:20 competitions overseas. --Dweller (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dweller. Nomination misses the scope of the categories. Jack | talk page 11:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. If the scope of the categories is not reflected in their titles, then they should be renamed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Current naming is clear, consistent and simple. I can't imagine how it could be improved. --Dweller (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:2009–10 New Zealand cricket season has a plain English meaning of "topics relating to cricket in New Zealand in the 2009-10 period". If it is intended to refer only to domestic fixtures, then the name should make that clear. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The name specifically and unamiguously refers to the concept of a cricket season. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * While the scope of Category:2009 in New Zealand cricket is topics relating to NZ cricket globally in the calendar year, which is wider than the scope of one season. Both concepts are needed by the cricket project. Jack | talk page 18:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current name is entirely unambiguous. It refers to the cricket season in New Zealand for that period.  How do you make that any clearer?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The New Zealand cricket team plays cricket at any time of the year, by touring. If the category is intended to refer only to the domestic cricket season, its name should reflect that fact.
 * It's totally unambiguous, specifically, in its name, referring to the concept of a "cricket season''. We don't require explanation of terminology in category names for people who aren't familiar with it, which is lucky, or some of the scientific categories would have ridiculous names. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's unambiguous only as a piece of in-house WP:JARGON. That article cricket season says "cricket seasons are the times of the year when cricket is played". As above, the NZ cricket team plays cricket all year round; it has a 12-month season. If you want a category to refer only to the domestic cricket season, then add the extra word to specify that. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Adding "domestic" introduces a different element of ambiguity, since "domestic cricket" will tend to refer to competitions below the level of international (Test, ODI, T20I) cricket, whereas the cricket that takes place in a particular season is of all kinds. Specifically it's the NZ national cricket team that plays all year round; lots of other NZ cricket teams, notable and non-notable, only play during the NZ cricket season. Johnlp (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I still think per my nomination that we should delete and upmerge any not already in the appropriate season category to the appropriate season eg Category: 2010–11 New Zealand cricket season. These categories have about 4 articles each so do not need merging to “years in New Zealand sport”. Year or season categories for a sport can contain both international tours by the national team and tours to the country by overseas teams. The article 2010–11 Ashes series in Australia appears as said above in Category:2010 in English cricket and Category:2011 in English cricket, but does not need a special category Category:2010–11 English cricket season, although the article is in the category 2010–11 Australian cricket season as the games are played during the Australian cricket season. The logic for a category 2010–11 English cricket season is the same as for the proposed Category:2013 in New Zealand cricket. The article New Zealand cricket team in England in 2013 about a May-June 2013 tour will fall within Category: 2012–13 New Zealand cricket season, but could be included in the next NZ season as well if it went into July. And New Zealand international tours to Australia and South Africa will fall within one season eg both Category:2012–13 Australian cricket season and Category:2012–13 New Zealand cricket season.  Hugo999 (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. Of course the Ashes series in 2010-11 doesn't appear in an English cricket season category, because it didn't take place in an English cricket season. It took place in an Australian cricket season and the two do not overlap. Any international series properly belongs in one season category (the one relating to the country it took place in) and one or two "year in cricket" categories for each of the teams that participated. One if the series was completed in a single year, two if the tour straddled Dec/Jan, as is common for the southern hemisphere.
 * Deleting this category will mean that all articles relating to the New Zealand cricket team playing away from home will not appear in a New Zealand cricket category. So this summer's tour of England will appear in the England season category, but not in the (now deleted) 2013 in New Zealand cricket. --Dweller (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: English cricket seasons in the northern hemisphere summer fall into one calendar year but the 2010–11 Ashes series is listed under two English cricket seasons, being in the southern hemisphere summer which spans two seasons. New Zealand tours of England can similarly be listed under one or two New Zealand cricket seasons as appropriate without an extra “by-year” layer for New Zealand cricket. And you want to list all international events involving New Zealand in the “by-year” category even though events like the 2010–11 Ashes series and the 2006–07 Chappell-Hadlee Trophy fall within one Australian and New Zealand cricket season. NB: The Category:2013 in New Zealand cricket was proposed above, but was never created as far as I am aware. Likewise Category:2012 in New Zealand cricket. Hugo999 (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me try again. The cricket season in New Zealand lasts from approx October to approx March. You are proposing to delete the "year" categories and leave only the "season" ones. That will mean that there is no appropriate NZ categorisation for matches played by NZ teams anywhere in the world in the months April to September inclusive.


 * This will make it impossible for researchers to use the Categories to find matches played by NZ teams without having to trawl the relevant Categories for each and every other cricket playing country. That's a nonsense and goes against the whole point of Categorisation.


 * Currently, all matches played in NZ are in the relevant season Cats and all matches involving NZ teams are in the year Cats. This is not a pointless duplication, but an aid to research. --Dweller (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, but with a proviso. I rather agree with both sides here, and I think that's because in my view the difficulty may well lie elsewhere. The basic problem seems to me not to be the apparently overlapping New Zealand categories: it is that Category:2010 in English cricket does two jobs. It covers articles that deal with English cricket in the 2010 English season; and it covers articles that deal with English cricket between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2010. This double function works only for England, because only in England among major Test-playing nations is the domestic season contained within a single year.
 * What I’m unclear about is whether having this double function is desirable. If there was a new category called Category:2010 English cricket season, then many existing articles such as Somerset County Cricket Club in 2010 would fit there, and it would parallel the existing cricket season categories for other parts of the world. But a broader Category:2010 in English cricket is still needed to cover articles about English cricket events outside the domestic season.
 * So rather than delete the New Zealand categories, I’m inclined to split the English one which is the true anomaly here. Johnlp (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. --Dweller (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So for every major cricket nation, there should be one category that covers the domestic season, and another for everything that happened in the calendar year. In every country except England, these will overlap. So NZ cricket season 2009-2010 overlaps with NZ cricket 2010, which overlaps with NZ cricket season 2010-2011 which overlaps with NZ cricket 2011 etc etc etc.
 * Is that what we're saying? Py0alb (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Sorry, I appreciate that these issues may be a little arcane for non cricket followers, especially the way that for most (but not every) countries each season encompasses two calendar years and that teams play away from home outside of their domestic season. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Py0alb after edit conflict). Basically, yes, but I'd see it more as a hierarchy, so that the season categories are subcategories of the year categories: in the case of England, they'd be a subcategory of just a single year category, but in New Zealand and elsewhere, they'd be shown as subcategories of two year categories. If an article records an event that happens inside a specific cricket season in that country, then the season category is the rightr place to put it; if an article records an event that happens outside that country's specific cricket season but in a particular year, then the year category is the right one. Because we're not meant to put articles into both subcategories and parent categories, there wouldn't be overlap. It's merely that the "lower level" season categories have, in the case of England, just one parent, whereas in the rest of the world where seasons overlap two years these subordinate categories would have two parent year categories. Johnlp (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Plain delete -- Cricket in temperate countries is a summer sport. The season straddles the change in year. Accordingly, the categories should be 2009-10.  The analogy with English cricket is a false one.  The correct analogy is with northern hemisphere winter nsports, such as Football or Rugby, where we have  recently got rid of annual categories in favour of season ones.   Peterkingiron (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So, taking a non English cricket example, which New Zealand season category would you place the (fairly randomly chosen article) New Zealand cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2009 in? That entire tour took place outside of any New Zealand cricket season. --Dweller (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. If the sport seasons categories for all sports are restricted to the playing season either say October-March or April-September as proposed above, this would not include items like player transfers before the season begins; eg List of Scottish football transfers summer 2011 which are naturally before the 2011–12 Scottish association football playing season starts. And to take the first article I picked at random on an English football club season (Fulham) the article refers to the 2009–10 season but starts with a tour of Australia in July 2009 and finishes with English league games in May 2010. The first “pre-season friendly” game in England is also in July 2009. See Fulham F.C. season 2010–11. Perhaps they get the (June) summer holidays off? Re New Zealand cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2009, I would leave it in Category:2009–10 New Zealand cricket season as bi-year seasons should run from July to June, here July 2009 to June 2010. Hugo999 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hang on, didn't you vote "Delete" earlier? Not sure about the propriety of voting twice... In any case, your attempt to correlate cricket with football now seems to rely on redefining cricket seasons into a 12-month period: I'm not sure it's Wikipedia's place to do that when the convention in the sport has been otherwise for more than 150 years. There's a basic point here: a category called Category:2009–10 New Zealand cricket season should contain links to articles about events (and other things) that took place in a (real) cricket season, in New Zealand, in 2009-10. New Zealand cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2009 doesn't fit those criteria: it didn't take place in New Zealand or in the New Zealand cricket season. Johnlp (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep (and note that Hugo999 has not only nominated this cat for deletion but has subsequently voted twice more for deletion.... please). This category (and those like them) are relevant to "cricket played by the country of New Zealand", not "cricket played in the country of New Zealand".  Per Dweller, this is an obvious keep.  (And Hugo999, voting "delete" for a fourth time won't help....)  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. A plain English reading of Category:2009 in New Zealand cricket is "things related to NZ cricket in 2009". If it has the narrower scope suggested by the Rambling Man, then its name should reflect that narrower scope. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that it should mean "things related to NZ cricket in 2009". The point is that there are some "things" that relate to NZ cricket that didn't take place within the defined time limits of the New Zealand cricket seasons (2008-09 and 2009-10) and that therefore can't go in the cricket season categories, but which are still relevant to NZ cricket. Of which a tour by the national cricket team elsewhere is an example. Johnlp (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've removed Hugo's additional delete votes and replaced them with comments in case a closing admin doesn't notice his multiple voting. We have four keeps against one merge and two deletes. Clearly the category means things related to NZ cricket in the calendar year but especially the activities of the national team. The domestic season is part of the calendar year only and, as it takes place in two calendar years, needs separate coverage. Dweller's original point summed it all up very well and the discussion since then has been largely superfluous. Definitely a keep (per my earlier vote). Jack | talk page 10:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Request. Can we have a closure on this one, please, as it has dragged on too long and the attempts at multiple voting are bang out of order. Jack | talk page 18:36, 11 May 2013 (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:Transgender in non-western cultures

 * 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: split. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Transgender in non-western cultures to Category:Transgender in Asia and Category:Transgender in Oceania and Category:Transgender in South America
 * Nominator's rationale: As the 2005 CFD argued, this an orientalist framing and has no place here IMHO. We can simply categorize these articles by the continent they are from, as we do for Europe/North America. From a quick perusal, Asia/Oceania/South America should do the trick for all of the articles currently in this category. I'm not quite sure what holds them together otherwise, other than this notion of "otherness". Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Split per nom This category both uses a strange definition of Western culture (Europe, Africa, and North America (!)), defining other continents by exclusion from it, and defies the well-established pattern of Category:Categories by continent. Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Split the categorization of South America as "non-Western" is questionable at best. A higher percentage of the population of Uruguay is of European descent than of the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Split per nom & all above. --Lquilter (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just weighing in as the apparent creator of this category (man, I don't even remember it) - this was the solution to some age old problem that likely doesn't exist anymore in anyone's active memory. By all means, improve it. I'm half-tempted to close the debate as a split, but I'd have to remember how to close a CFD, and I really don't care to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh. That's held me back lately too.  --Lquilter (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2013 (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:Transgender by 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Transgender by region to Category:Transgender by continent
 * Nominator's rationale: two existing cats are continental categories, this is more standard to classify articles based on their overall region of origin. The other cat has also been nominated for renaming. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom Standard category name. Dimadick (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom ... continent is manageable unlike "region". --Lquilter (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2013 (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:Wikipedia-Norwegian Museum of Cultural History

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia-Norwegian Museum of Cultural History to Category:Wikipedia-Norwegian Museum of Cultural History collaboration
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with all other subcategories in the category "Wikipedia GLAM collaborations by institution". Another Believer  ( Talk ) 21:56, 17 April 2013 (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:Wikipedia-Château de Versailles partnership

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia-Château de Versailles partnership to Category:Wikipedia-Château de Versailles collaboration
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with all other subcategories in the category "Wikipedia GLAM collaborations by institution". Another Believer  ( Talk ) 21:51, 17 April 2013 (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:Birmingham Gay Pride

 * 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.  Wizardman  16:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting birmingham gay pride


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OC category for an individual event; its only two entries already crosslink to each other in body text anyway, thus also violating WP:OC. The only other content that was ever in this category at all was a series of photographs from the event — however, categories are not supposed to be used to create image galleries in the first place, and for that matter every single one of the photographs in question is also tagged as a candidate to be transferred to Commons, meaning they will most likely eventually be deleted from en: and the category anyway. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Why not rename to Category:Gay culture in Birmingham which could potentially include more articles and would be similar to Category:Gay culture in Liverpool and Category:Gay culture in London. Hugo999 (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Renaming not necessary; already exists and this category was added alongside that one rather than replacing it. The other issue is that the two articles that are in this category are not male-exclusive topics — rather, they're gay and lesbian and bisexual and transgender, so even if separate splitouts for "individual quadrant culture in individual city" were actually warranted (which they're really not; those Liverpool and London categories should both be upmerged to the existing "LGBT culture in..." parents), these two topics still wouldn't belong in the male-exclusive one anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete overly small category that is not needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:LGBT culture in Birmingham to ensure that no data is lost. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Both articles are already in Category:LGBT culture in Birmingham anyway, so manually upmerging isn't necessary as no data is going to be "lost". Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2013 (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:Robot characters in video games

 * 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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Robot characters in video games to Category:Video game robots
 * Nominator's rationale: The current category name would suggest that the category is for robot character who merely appear in video games, but the description says it's only for characters who come from video games. There are dozens are robot characters who appear in video games on wikipedia, but do not originate in a video game, so this name change is required to clear this up. Mathewignash (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The principle that character categories refer to characters introduced in the medium is widespread throughout Category:Fictional characters by medium, from siblings like Category:Animal characters in video games to far-flung cousins like Category:Comics characters and Category:Film superheroes. The only examples I could find where "originating in" is specified in the name are several Disney-related subcategories, e.g. Category:Disney characters originating in television. So either the current state should be understood as convention, that categorization by medium is only applicable for characters originating in that medium, or this nomination will need to be expanded to include a few dozen additional categories. It does not sense to rename just this one and leave the others.- choster (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, I agree, if there are other categories, like "Alien characters in video games" or "Animal characters in video games" they could be improved upon too by being specific. As it stands now those categories are deceptively named. If the main thrust of the current category is supposed to be video game characters, then a better name fo rit might be "Category:Video game robot characters" or "Video game characters who are robot", putting the emphasis on video game character, not robots. As it is right now, look in the category "Film characters" and you will see a lot of characters who did not ORIGINATE in films, like Donatello of the TMNT (a comic book originating character). He only exists there because he has appeared in films, not because he originated there. Some categories have "originating" in their description and others do not. This is inconsistent. Having a more specific name for the category, or opening them up to any character appearing in the medium would be a solution.Mathewignash (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Film characters" is another category that is being spammed, just like comics characters. But it's not on my watch so persoally I don't care. I might start removing when I see it, though. (Also, as for TMNT characters: this is a complete mess for several reasons. But that's another story.) --Niemti (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, of course not. All of such vg characteers categories on Wikipedia are constructed this way, excluding boss characters only (out of tens ategories). And this is how it should be with comic characters as well ("This is a category for all fictional characters that originated in comics.") and all their sub-categories as well. The only dffierences is that for video games, the categories are actively being watched by me, while comics characters are not really watched by anyone, and are spammed with the characters from all kind the other media who just appeared in comics at some point And it's not even about their introduction, they are just mainly from this kind of media, they're just video game characters. See also: (same editor, same "problems", same day). Oh, and video game categories are actually not being spammed, unlike the comics and film ones (where even many of video game characters are spammed, but it's going one way - maybe I'll create one for vg characters who make licensed appearances in other media though, as often they actually make it pretty big, as with Sonic the Comic for Sonic the Hedgehog, maybe cats like "Video game characters in television series" etc). --Niemti (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the reasons offered by Niemti. Dimadick (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - The problem is NOT that we need more categories, the problem is this category misnamed and misleading. The category is called "Robot characters in video games", there are robot characters, who are in video games, and they are NOT allowed into this category... What sort of sense is there in that? If your argument is that this category should be limited to "video game characters", then don't call it "robot characters...", perhaps "Video game character robots" or "video game robots"? Then it would be properly descriptive. Mathewignash (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's going to make you happy then "video game robot characters" it may be. There's even already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_game_nobility with a similar naming convention (and made by me, no less). --Niemti (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2013 (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:People from Pineville, Kentucky

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Pineville, Kentucky to Category:People from Bell County, Kentucky
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has three entries. ...William 11:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Pineville is quite small, as cities go. I think the county article is sufficient. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Although it's not an official requirement as such, I think it's generally a very good practice to not subcategorize them by individual town or city until the town or city actually has its own eponymous category to also parent the "People from..." subcategory. Until that's true, people from the town or city should only be categorized by county. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. However, Bearcat's suggestion of not having unless we have  is silly.  The two decisions should be made separately, based slely on whether there are enough articles in either category to justify its existence. It's quite possible for a small town to have no notable buildings or sports teams or whatever to justify a town category, but still to have enough notable people to justify a category for them. For an example, see . -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Kindly note that I said it's generally a good idea; I didn't say there could never be a valid exception. And at any rate, Special:WhatLinksHere/Loughrea confirms that there are indeed enough articles about things in Loughrea (a castle, a GAA club, at least two churches, etc.) to support a, so that doesn't actually disprove my statement at all. It's actually profoundly unlikely that any town could ever spawn 15 notable people without also having at least two or three listed historic properties and a sports team and a local community newspaper and at least one local radio station, and possibly even two or three other notable historic events on top of that, to support an eponymous category. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying your intent, Bearcat. Regarding Pineville, although it is very small, it's a county seat and the only town in a fairly large area, so it can be expected to be the locus of multiple article topics. --Orlady (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Bearcat's reply is based on lots of assumptions. First, even if all those things exist on the ground, they won't necessarily have separate Wikipedia articles. Secondly, whether those things exist at all depends a lot on the area; a new industrial town may have many notable residents, but no notable buildings. In Europe, a local radio station is a rarity in a small town, and in the UK and Ireland a community newspaper is also a rarity. But a town which has none of those things may still have produced half-a-dozen notable people, which is enough for a category. Categories exist to facilitate navigation between articles, and if enough articles exist for one category of an approved type, then we should have it; but that's a separate issue to the question of whether enough articles exist for another category of an approved type. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are three people listed in the category, and no reason to think it won't grow larger. It's an inherently valid category, and it's not doing any harm. I agree with BrownHairedGirl regarding the silliness of Bearcat's suggestion, but I also went ahead and created Category:Pineville, Kentucky. --Orlady (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Upmerge Three people is not enough to jsutify a category like this, especially when the place has under 5,000 people. The county category is also no where near needing splitting, so upmerging makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2013 (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:Organ transplantation journals

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


 * The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Organ transplantation journals to Category:Surgery journals
 * Nominator's rationale: This category contains only 1 article. Going through Category:Surgery journals and Category:Medical journals, there seems to be only one other journal that would fit into this category (Annals of Transplantation). The category Surgery journals contains 44 articles (45 if this one is included), which does not seem to be excessive (and if that number should somehow appear to be too large, there would be more logical subcats, such a "Plastic surgery journals"). Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are at least three other journals that fit into this category, and I am considering creating articles for them as well. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Now there are six entries, and that's without the other entries that need to be created: Transplantation, Liver Transplantation, Transplantation Reviews, Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation, Transplantation Reviews, and The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected: there are more such journals than I thought. I withdraw the nomination. --Randykitty (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2013 (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:National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame inductees

 * 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.

Slightly more editors preferred keeping the category, but WP:NOTAVOTE. The long-standing wider consensus at WP:OC is that award categories are reserved for only a small number of exceptionally significant awards. This may be the highest hall of fame honor which a college player can get for their college achievements, but it remains a subset of the wider sport of basketball. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: delete; no need to listify, since a list already exists.
 * Note that this closure was discussed at discussed at WT:CBB, and then challenged on my talk page (permalink, where I responded to editors' concerns. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting national collegiate basketball hall of fame inductees


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. For info: There is a list at National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame. DexDor (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep U.S. college basketball is a huge deal (dwarfing the vast majority of pro sports leagues elsewhere in the world, I'd imagine.) Getting named to its H of F would seem to represent pretty much its highest honor, for lifetime achievement. As with the Pac-12 HofF, I don't see why it wouldn't easily meet WP:OC as an appropriate subcat of Category:Sports hall of fame inductees. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as an appropriate defining characteristic of the individuals so recognized for the highest level of achievement in collegiate basketball in the United States. The existence of a list is irrelevant; There's a reason that we don't just get rid of every category with a corresponding lists, and that's as explained in WP:CLN that categories, lists and navigation boxes are intended to complement each other, not to exist in competition with each other. Alansohn (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:CLN says that categories and overlapping lists can coexist. A cited advantage of categories is "Good for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia." There is a vast existing parent category in Category:Sports hall of fame inductees. It makes sense that readers should be able to browse and explore inductees of this hall of fame also, which is a notable honor and has it's own standalone list that meets WP:LISTN.—Bagumba (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the highest hall of fame honor a college player can get as far as their accomplishments at the university level. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete. We should have virtually no award categories.  We definately do not need it for basketball players who get in enough other categories as it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete -- WP:OC. This is a minor award.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 22 April 2013 (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:Pacific-12 Conference Men's Basketball Hall of Honor inductees

 * 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 both. The consensus is that this is not the highest level of award available to basketball players. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting pacific-12 conference men's basketball hall of honor inductees


 * Propose deleting pacific-12 conference men's basketball hall of honor


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. For info: There is a list at Pacific-12 Conference Men's Basketball Hall of Honor. DexDor (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm the creator. Wasn't aware of WP:OC#AWARD at the time. I'm sure I just mimicked another category like Category:Connecticut Huskies of Honor.  No strong feeling either way. —Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added Category:Pacific-12 Conference Men's Basketball Hall of Honor above for consideration as well.—Bagumba (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Category:Pacific-12 Conference Men's Basketball Hall of Honor inductees  and delete eponymous Category:Pacific-12 Conference Men's Basketball Hall of Honor I've mulled it over some more. WP:CLN says that categories and overlapping lists can coexist. A cited advantage of categories is "Good for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia." There is a vast existing parent category in Category:Sports hall of fame inductees.  It makes sense that readers should be able to browse and explore inductees of this hall of fame also, which is a notable honor and has it's own standalone list that meets WP:LISTN. Delete the eponymous category, however, which in hindsight has no purpose.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Category:Pacific-12 Conference Men's Basketball Hall of Honor inductees. Pac-12/NCAA basketball is a big, big deal in the U.S. Getting named to its H of F would seem to represent pretty much its highest honor, for lifetime achievement. This is a select group of individuals and I don't see why it wouldn't easily meet WP:OC. Pac 12 is a conference composed of the biggest schools, including many of the powerhouse programs. An appropriate subcat of Category:Sports hall of fame inductees, it seems to me. However, delete eponymous Category:Pacific-12 Conference Men's Basketball Hall of Honor, which doesn't seem to me to serve any useful purpose at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete award categories are supposed to be extremely limited. Being honored by a sub-national league does not meet that requirement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've changed to neutral per Johnpacklambert. While Pac-12 is a big deal, is a regional grouping and the national collegiate HoF nominated above would clearly be the highest honour. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete -- WP:OC. This is a minor award.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2013 (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:Plant articles with English titles

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting plant articles with english titles


 * Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorise articles by the form of their title - for one thing if an article is renamed to a synonym the category is no longer correct. This is also a sort of self-ref to the encyclopedia.  Perhaps this should be an admin/hidden category. DexDor (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete OCAT by shared characteristic of the title. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * delete this is overcategorization. Plus, if the article gets moved, the cats are suddenly broken? That doesn't make sense. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete we categorize by what things are, not what the article is named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or hide -- Not useful as a navigation aid, though it might be usefulfor admin. I presume that the "latin" speicies name will always also exist as a redirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2013 (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:Smithsonian Folklife Festival participants

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting smithsonian folklife festival participants


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is performer by performance overcategorization. While having been a performer at the Smithsonian Folklife Festival may be a notable fact about a performer, it is not defining for them and therefore not suitable for categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator as classic performer by performance. I'm sure it's an honor to perform at the festival, but with "more than 23,000" participants in 40+ years, it could hardly be considered defining. Maralia (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a perforer by performace category which we do not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - We do not allow performer by performance categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Performers are not typically defined by their performances, which might be many. --Lquilter (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2013 (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.