Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 27



Category:People from D'Iberville, Mississippi

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 09:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from D'Iberville, Mississippi to Category:People from Harrison County, Mississippi
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. ...William 23:42, 27 July 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:Freemasons 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: No consensus to keep. My problem is that the discussion did not consider the fact that this is an attempt to support previous discussions like this one or this one and there are others. Add to that the issue with not nominating the entire tree and we have a nomination that is not able to gain consensus.  So one option forward is to renominate listing all of the affected categories.  Another would be to reorganize based on the comments below, but that does not really address the history of previous discussions. So if deletion is attempted, it should mention all of the previous discussions to frame the discussion and see if in fact there is a change in consensus.  Reorganization, may just be time saver for parts of the tree since the underlying support for the entire tree is not clearly established.  The deletion review that was involved should also be addressed in future discussions.  Also I will note that the category was recreated without discussion of why it should be unsalted so that action, given the previous discussions and the deletion review, are also on the table. Good luck.  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting freemasons by nationality


 * Nominator's rationale: I'd particularly like deletion of parent and all subcats without upmerge in this case. Freemasonry by nationality is trivial in the first place, creates overcat, and encourages more overcat. We've been through this discussion before, and the cat was deleted, only to be recreated, and the same issues are apparent. Only in a very few cases are the people in the cat Freemasons where that was a defining category (meaning they made a major or unique contribution to it), and that's what Category:Freemasons is for in the first place.  Thus, upmerge is unnecessary. MSJapan (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support although, realistically for this to work, all the specific nationalities will need to be nominated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The category would be unwieldy without some form of sub-categorisation.  The logically most pure would be by Obedience (Conservative, Liberal, Co-Freemasonry, etc) and then by Grand Lodge/Orient - but that would be a nightmare and probably not that helpful to a person who does not know the terms.  So nationality is probably the best way to sub-categorise. JASpencer (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Same reasons as JASpencer. Lekoren (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete freemasonry is not defining and is not monolithic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- We cannot fell the whole tree, without all categories being nominated. We would suggest that being a member of the Freemasons is too common to be defining (except rarely), any more than being a Baptist, Methodist or Anglican.  Being an officer of the senior echelons of the masons might be, though I am not sure.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if you want the whole tree deleted, you need to nominate and delete thhe whole tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:01, 5 August 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:Computer mahjong

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 09:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Computer mahjong to Category:Mahjong video games
 * Nominator's rationale: I recommend merging this to Category:Mahjong video games because the latter is more clear and part of a more consistent tree of "[X] video games". —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. The computer mahjong category links to Mahjong video game as its head article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge as PC and Mahjong is a WP:OC intersection. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:17, 2 August 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:Fictional interdimensional beings

 * 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 match the stated purpose, but without prejudice to re-creating Category:Fictional interdimensional beings if that would also be useful. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming fictional interdimensional beings


 * Nominator's rationale: This category isn't actually for interdimensional beings, but for beings from parallel universes, as demonstrated by the category boilerplate and this revert. Vashti (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I'm not a big science fiction reader but I think there is a difference between "interdimensional" and "parallel universes". Dimensions can include time as well as other dimensions that only exist in sci-fi literature/programming. Parallel universe is more specific and refers to a particular place that exists. An interdimensional being (like, say Doctor Who) can travel through time and space but that is not the same as existing in a parallel universe (which he has done but he is not reducible to this).
 * But I'm not sure whether beings from parallel universe should exist as a subcategory of interdimensional beings or be completely separate. Since the former category describes someone who exists in a place and doesn't necessary travel between dimensions, they seem like two distinct but somewhat overlapping categories. P.S. I'm omitting "fictional" because I think that's obvious in this discussion. Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * However, at present pages are being removed from this category, on the grounds that they refer to various forms of interdimensional beings which are not from parallel universes. The category boilerplate states that the category is for beings from parallel universes. This is the intended use of the category. Vashti (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I think either the description of the category should be rewritten or a separate category be created for parallel universes. Because they aren't the same thing so it sounds like the explanation of what the category should contain is at odds with the category name. Newjerseyliz (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the situation, yes. Vashti (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In that's case, I'd support Creation of a new, separate category for beings from parallel worlds. Newjerseyliz (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support parallel universes are a clearer and easier to understand concept. What is and is not interdimensional is too complex.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose, but could consider a different rename The creatures in the second part of Asimov's The Gods Themselves are in a parallel universe but are not interdimensional. These properties are not synonymous; nor for that matter does an interdimensional being have to be from another universe. As a side note, I suspect this was created to categorize a few characters from a TV show and is now being extended; is the point to make a category which fits the members it already has? Seyasirt (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the original intent for the category was; I can only go by how it's being used. The name it currently has doesn't fit that use, since as you say, interdimensional origin and parallel-universe origin are different things. I track Shinigami (Death Note), and this page was removed from that category on the grounds that it didn't fit. It seems as if the category was badly named to begin with. Vashti (talk) 17:48, 28 July 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:Chefs by location

 * 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,   K rakatoa    K atie   07:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * and upmerge sub-cats for cities into national categories for chefs. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting chefs by location


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. The inclusion criteria is Chefs who work in major cities throughout the world. Do we want to start categorizing people by the cities that they work in?  Take someone like Emeril Lagasse, how many cities does he work in?  Do we keep this updated for their current city or keep a history?  If this is deleted, then we need to consider what to do with the subcategories.  If they are based on the same category, then deletion is probably the best option.  Additionally, the subcategories make the assumption that a chef who works in a place, is from there.   Vegaswikian (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete the whole tree. Chefs work in specific places, but can change. We do not need this level of specificity for chefs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete the whole tree. Do we have others categorized by where they work, really Category:Tennis players who play (sometimes or maybe once) in New York City, Category:Golfers who play (sometimes or maybe once) in Saint Andrews, Scotland; c'mon, crap. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your WP:OTHERSTUFF misses a point - this is defining for a chef. And we do categorise some people by "where they work" - sportspeople by team. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Restructure -- The nom category is effectively a worldwide "chefs by city", but we do not work that way in WP. We usually split by country. The alternative split is by nationality, but traditionally in England the best chefs were French - working in England but not British.  Where a person mainly works is clearly defining, possibly more so than nationality.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting something like this? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Chefs of Atlanta, Georgia to Category:Chefs of Georgia (U.S. state)
 * Propose renaming Category:Chefs of Austin, Texas to Category:Chefs of Texas
 * Propose renaming Category:Chefs of Chicago to Category:Chefs of Illinois
 * Propose renaming Category:Chefs of Dublin to Category:Chefs of Ireland
 * Propose renaming Category:Chefs of the Las Vegas Valley to Category:Chefs of Nevada
 * Propose renaming Category:Chefs of Miami, Florida to Category:Chefs of Florida
 * Propose renaming Category:Chefs of New Orleans, Louisiana to Category:Chefs of Louisiana
 * Propose renaming Category:Chefs of Paris to Category:Chefs of France
 * Propose renaming Category:Chefs of Portland, Oregon to Category:Chefs of Oregon
 * Propose renaming Category:Chefs of Prague to Category:Chefs of the Czech Republic
 * Propose renaming/merging Category:Chefs of London to Category:Chefs of England
 * Propose renaming/merging Category:Chefs of Nottingham to Category:Chefs of England
 * Propose renaming/merging Category:Chefs of Oxford to Category:Chefs of England
 * Propose renaming/merging Category:Chefs of Los Angeles, California to Category:Chefs of California
 * Propose renaming/merging Category:Chefs of San Francisco, California to Category:Chefs of California
 * Keep all. I was originally considering going along with PKI's restructuring suggestion, but the more I thought about it, the more I realised this doesn't compare to the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument raised by Carlossuraez46. Chefs are known, distinctly, by the city in which they work - you easily say, for instance, that a particular chef is "from London" or "from New York" or "from New Orleans" when referring to them. This is defining for a chef - the same as, for instance, Category:New York Yankees players is for baseball stars. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Which does not even begin to answer the question raised about Emeril Lagasse. While some locations might be defining, are all of them?  If not how do you make this objective rather then subjective? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "chefs by city" is comparable to "sportspeople by team". The former is a category of people by occupation and location whereas the latter is one of people by occupation and affiliation/employer/organization. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment We have things like Category:American chefs and Category:French chefs. Chefs are categorized by nationality, not by where they work. I see no reason to subdivide people nationality level for the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is more functional from an encyclopedic standpoint to index chefs by state or country, such as proposed above by User:The Bushranger, than it is to simply delete all of these categories in entirety. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which does not even begin to answer the question raised about Emeril Lagasse. While some locations (states) might be defining, are all of them?  If not how do you make this objective rather then subjective? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Upmerge - I think it is a mistake to state that city "is defining" for a chef; rather, it would be more accurate to say that affiliation with a particular city may be defining for some especially prominent chefs. For most chefs, the city in which they work at one point in time is just where they happen to live. If there is a particularly strong connection, I don't see why it couldn't be captured using a People from [city] category. However, so that categorization is not lost, these categories need to be upmerged to the appropriate parents: Fooian chefs and People from Bar (e.g., Category:Chefs from Austin, Texas needs to be upmerged to Category:American chefs and Category:People from Austin, Texas). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That dual upmerge assumes that the chief lives in or has a strong tie to some city. That is not proven in this discussion.  Does anyone think that Emeril Lagasse lives in every city he operates a restaurant in?  Given your argument, an upmerge to Category:American chefs could be justified in lieu of deletion.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Touché. I think that we need to retain the tie to a city in those cases where it is strong; however, that will require manual assessment rather than auto-merging by a bot. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which in my mind means that if we have a consensus with the upmerge to Category:American chefs or to Category:Fooian chefs, people from categories can be added manually in the few cases where it might be needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite right. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all. I actually would've rather closed this but I'm not familiar enough with CFD close procedures (plus I'm not sure if WP:NAC applies to deletes). The delete rationales boil down to chef locations being too tenuous and/or indiscernible for categorization; this is not a claim that anyone has actually countered. Some have stated that in other cases categories exist regardless of that issue, using sports teams as an example; but I find that to be a weak argument, as since the issue is the tenuousness and ambiguity of the locale association, comparing to sports players -- who have an association that is anything but ambiguous, but rather official -- does not draw a fair parallel (essentially per Black Falcon above). Per the exchange between Vegaswikian and Black Falcon, I think a simple deletion is the proper course, and other existing location categories can replace these, manually and on a cases-by-case basis, for the particular chefs that are indeed concretely associated with one of those locations. equazcion  �  07:19, 12 Oct 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:Sirius Satellite Radio channels

 * 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: [[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|16px|link=|alt=]] Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 24. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting sirius satellite radio channels


 * Propose deleting Category:XM Satellite Radio channels
 * Nominator's rationale: That a radio station (e.g. NPR or BBC Radio 1) has been broadcast by a particular satellite/company is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that radio station. What next - "Category:Radio channels transmitted from Droitwich" ? These categories also incorrectly place articles in Category:Digital only radio stations. Alternatively, these categories might be salvageable by tightening up inclusion criteria, purging and possibly merging.  There may be some list articles in these categories (e.g. this, this, this) that should be upmerged. DexDor (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * keep This provides navigation to related series of articles, the purpose of categories. Deletion/up-merge makes no sense.  Hmains (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The various methods of distribution are not really defining for a radio station.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * unfortunately that has nothing to do with the contents of the category Hmains (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the relationship between NPR (for example) and Sirius/XM if it's not that Sirius/XM has been used to distribute NPR ? DexDor (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What if the categories were cleaned up so they only contain articles that state they are a Sirius channel in one case and XM Satellite channel in the other--which is what the category names indicate should be the only contents. Most of the articles say this; eliminate the others Hmains (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, CNN, etc. do seem to have radio channels on Sirius and XM Satellite so why would their channels be any different than the rest of the channels? Hmains (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the category was changed to include only channels owned by Sirius/XM (or in some other way that meant it didn't include channels for which Sirius/XM is just a transmitter) then that might be OK; the nomination suggested cleanup as a possible alternative to deletion. DexDor (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hmaines and DexDor. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:04, 5 August 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.

Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland

 * 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/split. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

At present the members of the Senate of Northern Ireland are categories by the Parliament in which they sat. However, none of the Senators were elected to terms which coincided with the dates of Parliaments. Instead 24 out of 26 were elected (by the Northern Ireland House of Commons, using the single transferable vote) to eight year terms in two tranches of 12. These elections did not take place at the same time as the start of the Parliaments, so that some Senators were only briefly members of one Parliament. I am proposing, in effect, to realign the categories so that they align with the actual terms to which these 24 Senators were elected. As it happens this does not require much alteration. Although there was no general election during the Second World War, there was in fact a Senate election on 23 June 1941.
 * Propose splitting Category:Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland 1937–1945 to Category:Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland 1937–1941 and Category:Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland 1941–1945
 * Propose renaming Category:Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland 1957–1962 to Category:Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland 1957–1961
 * Propose renaming Category:Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland 1962–1965 to Category:Members of the Senate of Northern Ireland 1961–1965

I'm not certain what to do with the Lord Mayor of Belfast and the Mayor of Londonderry, who had Senate seats ex officio and therefore had annual terms, albeit frequently renewable. Their terms normally came to an end of May. It's probably easier to fit them in with the other categories as they are now. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:26, 27 July 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.