Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 3



B-Witched

 * 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 all, i.e. do not rename or delete. Talk:B*Witched was closed as "not moved". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming
 * Category:B*Witched to Category:B-Witched
 * Category:B*Witched songs to Category:B-Witched songs
 * Category:B*Witched albums to Category:B-Witched albums
 * Category:B*Witched compilation albums to Category:B-Witched compilation albums
 * Category:B*Witched EPs to Category:B-Witched EPs
 * Category:B*Witched video albums to Category:B-Witched video albums
 * Nominator's rationale: MOS:TM avoid Macy*s, so this will use standard characters instead of playful typography. This is related to the requested move at Talk:B*Witched -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait until move request of main article is resolved and match based on that outcome. It can be speedied at that point. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 09:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment but wouldn't following the MOS apply to categories anyways? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion at the article's talk page has closed, and the article was not moved. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Keep as is to match article title. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:BAN as they were created by a sock in violation of an indefinite block. Nymf  talk to me 19:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article was not moved; WP:G5 is useful but is not a requirement in the case of clearly constructive edits; as these categories appear to have been in place for over three months we would hardly be WP:DENYing anything. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:DENY is really the point here. MaybeMaybeMaybe was blocked in 2011 as Nirame. Since then there have been numerous sock accounts, including RafikiSykes and MaybeMaybeMaybe. With only those two socks combined, there are over 1000 categories created. By leaving these up, we encourage the user to keep socking (rinse and repeat, pretty much, as no one is going to act on it), making the act of keeping these categories counterproductive and destructive to the Wikipedia. (Nymf editing logged out.) 79.136.126.106 (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * These would all need to be recreated anyway based on the standard practice of categorizing albums and songs by artist, although Category:B*Witched we can do without. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Category:B*Witched per WP:EPONCAT. Oppose all others to keep as main article. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I agree with the nominator's reasoning, category names should follow article names whenever possible, and I see no reason for this to be different; should the move request be successful, a speedy-rename request will be appropriate.  And don't speedy delete these: getting rid of these categories on G5 grounds would be thoroughly counterproductive.  Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 4 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:Children of divorce

 * 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 Bushranger One ping only 06:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting children of divorce


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. We generally do not categorize people by either who their parents were or what their parents did. Divorce is so common that this can hardly be called "defining" for the children involved. See also the 2010 deletion discussion for the similar Category:Divorcees. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. We don't categorise people by the nature of their parents' relationship, or by any other attributes of their parents (part from some cases of the children of hereditary peers, where parentage was specifically defining for the children). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete We absolutely do categorize people by the nature of their parents' relationship, as long as the relationship is defining, such as for Category:Children of Holocaust survivors and Category:Children of Presidents of the United States (and its whole set of corresponding structure). The question is whether the characteristic is defining, and the answer to that question is no. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply. Neither Category:Children of Holocaust survivors nor Category:Children of Presidents of the United States is a "category by the nature of their parents' relationship". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Either way, we agree on the result as non-defining. Alansohn (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is unfortunately far too common to be defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Who wants to be defined by their parentage anyway? --Richhoncho (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete no more defining as such other non-cats such as first-born children, middle kids, kids whose parents died before the kid graduated from school, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I think we lack a clear definition. What is the oldest someone can be when their parents divorced to qualify?  Anyway, even a person themselves divorcing will not always be noted, their parents divorcing even less so.  Also, does someone whose parents divorce before their birth, and their mother remarries before the person is one-year-old and their step-father adopts them and they assume his name really qualifiy?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Another issue is that this will be limited to people whose parents were at one point married, but from a sociological perspective those whose parents lived together without marriage and then split up would be in a very similar situation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No clear criteria for inclusion, and questionable notability of the subject. Dimadick (talk) 15:23, 6 March 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:Districts in Miami, Florida

 * 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 06:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Districts in Miami, Florida to Category:Neighborhoods in Miami, Florida
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Similar content. Pietro (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge some of the places in the districts category show up on the neighborhoods map.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 7 March 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:Roger McGough

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting roger mcgough


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:EPONCAT. Contains 3 categories - two of which contain only redirects (one of which is nominated for deletion below)and two articles including one for Roger McGough.  Richhoncho (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 14 March 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:Songs produced by Roger McGough

 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting songs produced by roger mcgough


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category contains all the songs from one album, and each member of the category is a redirect. The album is also the single member of Category:Albums produced by Roger McGough which doubly makes this category redundant. There is a further consideration that these are song articles, and McGough may not have produced different versions of each song (if any).. Richhoncho (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. A category full of redirects to the same page is an impediment to navigation; it wastes readers' time. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per BHG's arguments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this and also Category:Songs written by Roger McGough, which is exactly the same. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:41, 13 March 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:Berkshire society

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete all. The contents are all in the Berkshire/Hampshire trees.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting berkshire society


 * Propose deleting berkshire society


 * Propose deleting berkshire society


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. The corresponding "London" categories have multiple sub-cats and should be kept, but these three seem unnecessary, as they are not part of a "by county" hierarchy, and the single-subcat contents in each case are also found in other siblings within the county structure. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I've added extra subcategories to the two society categories. Tim! (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Berkshire and Category:Hampshire respectively. This is in case something is not adequately categorised by county already.  The targets are not so full as to need splitting.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Society categories are worth keeping after all. If upmerging, I suggest that Category:Culture in Berkshire and Category:Culture in Hampshire would probably be more appropriate targets, as Society categories are sub-cats of Culture. However, I still think that Category:Death in England is not something that is appropriate to sub-categorise by county. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete the death category, it is an unneeded and questionalbe parent for cemeteries cats. I am neutral on the other two.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 14 March 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:Full rigged 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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Full rigged ships to Category:Full-rigged ships
 * Category:Fully Rigged Ships of Australia‎ to Category:Full-rigged ships of Australia
 * Nominator's rationale: Per the main article, Full-rigged ship. "Full-rigged" is a compound modifier and, therefore, must be hyphenated; the current title suggests that the category is for rigged ships that are or were full. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK with this I'm not fastidious about the hyphenation but the category should match the main article, whose rename hasn't been opposed. Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 3 March 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:Wikipedians who use Google search

 * 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: stripped. Er, delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians who use google search
 * Nominator's rationale: This userbox-populated category for editors who use Google Search does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. Not only is the category built around a characteristic that does not correspond to any special ability, skill, or interest, but the threshhold for inclusion is exceedingly low as Google is the most popular web search engine and there are no barriers to using it. The userboxes entirely suffice for identifying a user's preferred search engine, and the category is superfluous. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: There have been several discussions of similar categories of Wikipedians by search engine, including for Cat:Wikipedians who use Google, and they have all ended in deletion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Use of Google is so widespread that noting that fact does not assist collaboration. The set of potential members of this category is not quite as complete as or , but it's not far behind. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Delete per nom & BHG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete actually I am tempted to hypothesize that a higher percentage of people who have created accounts on wikipedia use google to search things than wear clothes. People who never use google are just not likely to have created accounts here, while people who regularly refuse to use clothes might.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Cue tabloid headline Wikipedia has nudist editors shock!. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 8 March 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:AAAA-rated tourist attractions

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting aaaa-rated tourist attractions


 * Propose deleting aaaa-rated tourist attractions


 * Propose deleting aaaa-rated tourist attractions


 * Propose deleting aaaa-rated tourist attractions


 * Propose deleting tourist attraction rating categories of china


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems to be more of a travel guide related category. Not sure that something being safe and clean makes it encyclopedic. This is one of several related categories that will be added depending on the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep It is more of a travel guide category, and the criteria seem to be more based on related work than on the main attraction itself. However, those tourist attractions ratings are part of a formal rating system in China, run by the Government, which seems to be extensively used. For me it seems of use to classify them together like this therefore; without being an endorsement from our side or so… L.tak (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTRAVEL. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I read those 3 sentences and am aware of its meaning. The point I want to make is that a government-controlled qualification system which is leading within a country is an important attribute to those articles can be encyclopedic. We have precedents for important systems like Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants, (although I am the first to agree that that system is more notable..) L.tak (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We're not adding phone numbers or opening hours, but an official government designation that's hugely influential. Adding a corresponding category to relevant articles does not violate WP:NOTTRAVEL. -Zanhe (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - category rankings like this aren't permanent characteristics. Also many/most of the articles in this category are about subjects (e.g. mountains) for which being a tourist attraction is not a defining characteristic. This might work as a list. DexDor (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They are semi-permanent, like World Heritage Site designations, which can be removed or modified, though not frequently. And we have many categories related to WHS. -Zanhe (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete These are not permanent characteristics, they are not defining characteristics, and in any case WP:NOTTRAVEL. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not 100% permanent (few things are), but they are official government designations that rarely change. -Zanhe (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * DElete -- These sound like a POV-category of one or more travel-guide editors. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. See the official Chinese government website. -Zanhe (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:OCAT by award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. These are government designations, not awards. -Zanhe (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete These are not permanent ratings but subject to change. Anyway, the fact that at least one river is in here, and rivers are not primarily tourist attractions, says this is a category that sweeps to wide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Li River IS best known as a tourist attraction. -Zanhe (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But, that's not how we categorize things - if we did there'd be continuous arguments about whether each river is "best known" for tourism, fishing, transport, irrigation, religion ... DexDor (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that Li River is officially rated by the Chinese government as an AAAAA site, see here. The category only reflects that significant fact, which does not rely on the personal judgment of Wikipedia editors. -Zanhe (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - most people who have voted "delete" appear to have little understanding of how these ratings work. They are not someone's POV ratings, but official ratings by the Chinese government with very specific requirements.  Tourist attractions in China spend millions of dollars to reach and maintain standards to keep or upgrade their ratings and they're hugely influential. -Zanhe (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That may all be true, but does it have any relevance to categorization ? DexDor (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the justification of some "delete" votes is that these ratings are POV of travel guide writers, which they are absolutely not. -Zanhe (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please you must know that is simply not true! Governments do not create or define our category structures.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How is that not true? Did you read the Peterkingiron comment above? Wikipedia is of course not run by governments, but there's nothing wrong with having categories that are based on existing government categories. -Zanhe (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. These are official government categories, not travel guide ratings. Though membership is sometimes fluid (especially in the AA and AAA sections), the categories themselves are stable. They don't have to make sense in the abstract (a river here, a mountain there, then a temple and an ethnic village). They hold together because they're institutionally recognized by the government of the PRC. Finally, the classification system itself is explained in reliable sources, which is generally considered to be WP's threshold for inclusion. See for example . Madalibi (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * keep no one is saying that the information is false; it is sourced; and certainly an interesting collection of information about China.
 * That is important if you are discussing article content. It is not a justification to retain a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to me to be comparable to category systems like NRHP. I don't see how anything said in WP:NOTTRAVEL applies. WP:OC on the other hand is so vague it could be used to argue against half the categories on Wikipedia. Or none. --Qetuth (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The rule against award cats is often applied, so I do not think it can be reasonable said to go against nothing. Anyway, most cats, like year of birth or death and occupation are clearly not related to awards.  Anyway, as I understand this, these categories are related to designations that can change, which is even worse than awards that one gets.  It is clearly a mess and will open the door to lots more categories that we do not want.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't criticising the rule, I was criticising the guideline as written, which is meaningless enough to offer no practical guidance. It amounts to "People get awards. We don't categorize by them. Except sometimes we do" and yet gets referred to as a delete reason for categories like this one.
 * Listed buildings and Michelin stars are also designations which can change, which we categorise by. The fact that they can change might be a disadvantage, but on the other hand the clear definition from an authoritative source is preferable to a subjective category like Category:Visitor attractions in Suzhou or Category:Historic houses. --Qetuth (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of those other categories may not strictly meet WP:DEFINING and may occasionally not be permanent, but (1) WP:OTHERSTUFF applies and (2) categories such as those being discussed here are (partly) about characteristics like how clean the toilets were when last inspected, whereas the WHS and NRHP categories are more/only about how important the site is (to history, geology etc); for an encyclopedia (not a travel guide) there's quite a difference. Tourist ratings can be mentioned in articles or lists, but they're not a good way to categorize articles. Category:Visitor attractions is, like many categories, often mis-used; I've removed many articles from it, including some about places that no person has ever visited! DexDor (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipeida is not a tour guide.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * These are official government designations, not tour guide ratings. -Zanhe (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Simply put, though this information is appropriate for inclusion in articles and even a list, it is not a suitable basis for categorization. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Verifiability is a necessary condition for categorization, but it is not a sufficient condition. The fact that this information is supported by reliable sources is relevant when considering whether to categorize an individual article but not when deciding whether to keep or delete the category tree as a whole. Although this is an official rating scheme used by the PRC, it is plainly not defining for the vast majority of the categorized subjects. A place might be known for being a World Heritage Site, a "national treasure", or the like, but it is not known for a "AAA" or "AAAA" rating. If one were to describe the Church of Nercón, one might start by saying that "it is a World Heritage Site in Chile". However, if one were to describe the Forbidden City, it seems unlikely that one would start by noting that "it is a AAAAA-rated tourist attractions according to the Tourist Attraction Rating Categories of China".
 * Striking my above vote per several rebuttals, but in particular this one --Qetuth (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rebuttal: I'm afraid that your argument is flawed due to your lack of knowledge about China. In China these ratings are authoritative and undoubtedly WP:DEFINING. A designation of a 5A or 4A site is far more influential in China than National Heritage Sites, and only exceeded in prestige by World Heritage Site. Visit the official website of most major Chinese tourist attractions and you'll see the 4A or 5A designation prominently displayed.  For example, check out the website of the World Heritage Site Mount Lu, the AAAAA symbol is displayed next to the WHS logo.  Here's the "about" page of another World Heritage Site Western Qing Tombs, it's in Chinese but you can see the image of the AAAA certificate displayed above the WHS one.  Here are a few more examples: Mount Qionglong, Mount Li -Zanhe (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That argument is flawed (possibly due to your lack of understanding of WP categorization). Those websites may well be aimed at people considering visiting the sites for whom the tourist rating is important.  In a global (English language) encyclopedia the top international award (these are awards that humans have given the sites, not intrinsic characteristics of the sites themselves) for a site is the WHS. The exception to the normal rule that "recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category" is generally for the top international award in the field (implied by WP:OC) - in this case that would be WHS.
 * P.S. Michelin stars have been mentioned, but there are important differences. A Michelin star is an indication of how good a restaurant is at being a restaurant; the nearest equivalent for a river would be something like the area drained by the river or the river's flow rate. Also (I think it's fair to say that) Michelin stars are generally agreed to be the top international award in the field which means they may be OK per WP:OC. The Michelin stars categories also make clear they're about a permanent characteristic. DexDor (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

To me your argument sounds incredibly west-centric and smacks of interpreting the rules to rationalize your personal bias. You're basically arguing that a restaurant guide published by a French tire company covering only western countries (plus a handful of non-western cities) has more encyclopedic value than the official Chinese government rating that is authoritative to more than a billion people. Besides, you continue to belittle tourist attractions without questioning the intrinsic encyclopedic value of restaurants. One thing I know for sure: 100 years later, 99% of these A-rated tourist sites will still be with us, whereas a majority of the Michelin-starred restaurants will be long gone. -Zanhe (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would go one further. I would argue we should also delete the whole Michelin star tree.  However I think you are ignoring the fact that things can move up and down in ratings, getting the highest rating is not permanent, and categories are supposed to be permanent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you're taking the word permanent too literally. Few things are permanent in the absolute sense. World Heritage Sites can get delisted (Dresden), cities and provinces are created (Tiemenguan City) or merged (Jiangdu) on a not infrequent basis. Even entire countries come (South Sudan) and go (South Yemen). I believe the general practice is to treat semi-permanent things that do not change frequently or regularly as permanent. -Zanhe (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. These seem to me to be comparable to the A, B, and C subcategories of Category:Listed buildings in Scotland by grade.  Both are official governmental designations for their subjects, and both have names open to misinterpretation as unofficial ratings when they're defining and official.  The article makes it seem that the status of a site will remain unchanged barring a loss of site integrity or other substantial problem, and that's comparable to what's done by many other governmental site ratings that we commonly use for categories, including UK listed buildings.  Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Listed building status is awarded based on a building's importance to architecture etc; an argument could be made that it fails WP:OC. Tourist ratings (Chinese or otherwise) are partly/mainly about things like how clean the toilets are in the visitor centre and whether there's access for disabled tourists and so are an even worse characteristic to categorize by. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your comment is a blatant mischaracterization of the ratings. It's true that all A-rated sites have to meet minimum hygiene standards such as providing clean toilets, but the ratings are mainly based on criteria such as the site's fame, cultural/environmental significance, protection of the environment around the site, and number of visitors. -Zanhe (talk) 14:25, 4 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:Former Yahoo! employees

 * 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 to Category:Yahoo! employees. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting former yahoo! employees


 * Nominator's rationale: this is not like a renounced religion. we dont categorize people as "formerly" something, or as retired. these people were at one time employees, and the curious will simply read the article to determine if they are current employees. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Yahoo! employees. Indeed, we do not categorize people by current or former affiliation; however, the category needs to be upmerged so that these individuals are not removed from the category tree entirely. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge as Black Falcon -- we rarely allow a present/former distinction in categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Upmerge as explained (nominator)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Yahoo! employees, however we might also purge out any for whom the employment is not really notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 7 March 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:Mayors of San Bruno, California

 * 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: upmerge to Category:Mayors of places in California (the other merge already manually performed). The Bushranger One ping only 06:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting mayors of san bruno, california


 * Nominator's rationale: only 1 article, research shows its highly unlikely any other mayors will have articles any time soon. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Mayors of places in California and Category:People from San Bruno, California. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Double upmerge per BHG. As it is Category:People from San Bruno, California is barely large enough to survive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 7 March 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:Italian Jews

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Italian Jews to Category:Italian people of Jewish descent
 * Nominator's rationale: Nominated out of process with a merge template. I will contact the person who placed the template and ask them to comment at the discussion Ego White Tray (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - these are two different things: Category:Italian Jews is (or should be) for those who practise (or have practised) the Jewish religion, Category:Italian people of Jewish descent includes those who don't. It's therefore the parent category. See e.g. Category:American Jews and Category:American people of Jewish descent, and similar cats for other countries. See also Jews in Wikipedia, where Jews are described as 'both a nation and an ethnoreligious group' - providing the basis for the dual categorisation as 'ethnic Jews' and 'practising Jews'.--Smerus (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Two different things, as explained above. Mayumashu (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There two groups overlap, but they are different. Most people who are Jews are Jewish by descent (i.e. they are not converts); but many people of Jewish descent are not Jewish. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Since conversion to Judaism is unusual, to describe someone as of "Jewish descent" tends to imply that they or a parent have converted away from Judaism. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete divisive ethno-religious category. Jewish descent as an "ethnicity" is a bizarre concept - most people consider one's ethnicity to be unchangeable, but Jewish is different at Wikipedia. Any Atheist or Christian (or other non-Jewish) descendants of Sammy Davis Jr. are "of Jewish descent" due to his conversion but their non-direct line relatives are not - what other ethnicity you get from a parent excludes your aunts/uncles/cousins, etc. from that parent's side of the family? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm Confused - I always knew that Sammy Davis, Jr. was Jewish, you can tell just by looking, but since when was he Italian? Isn't "Davis" a sure sign of English descent? Alansohn (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you do not really think that someone with the last name of "Davis" can not have Italian ancestry. Last names are not sure signs of anything.  As it is Davis is actually at least somehwat of African-American descent.  Many last names have been "anglicized" by immigrants to the United States or their descendants.  Other people, such as those of Afircan descent, took on last names with no relationship to their ethnic origin.  Then of course lots of entertainers use pseudonyms.  Lastly, just because a last name may reflect some of a person's ancestry does not mean it reflects all.  Lost of people may have an Italian-born mother while having a father of a different ancestry.  Anyway, Davis is Welsh.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sammy Davis Jr. was actually the son of an African-American father and either a Cuban or Puerto Rican mother. He was a convert to Judaism.  There may be problems with the x people of Jewish descent categories, but that does not show why we should merge x JEws categories into those and create an even more horrible mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Italian Jews are people of Jewish religion or ethnicity who live in Italy. They can include converts to Judaism.  The descent category is meant for people who are not Jews who have Jewish ancestry.  They are clearly distinct categories and should not be merged.  I am less sure we need the target, but we clearly need Category:Italian Jews since we have Category:Italian Roman Catholics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 5 March 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:Free online 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: no consensus. This needs a cleanup, because no one outside the video game cognoscenti could know what to put where. But the discussion suggests this is not as simple as just merging.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Free online games to Category:Free-to-play video games
 * Nominator's rationale: Nominated by another user to merge as noted using a merge tag. Moving the discussion here where it belongs. I will try to contact the editor who placed the tag. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

One thing we don't have though is simply Category:Free games. Wouldn't this be the easiest way to describe the concept? I'm not even sure why we need 'ware' or 'to-play'. Maybe it refers to software being free, but hardware having costs? Hardware costs are avoided with free online downloads though, so the only costs would be electricity and ISP bandwidth internet charges. I would argue that while 'free online games' can be used to disambiguate from non-free online games, it could also distinguish from 'free offline games' as part of a 'free games'. Stuff like classic non-copyrighted boardgames like checkers, tic tac toe, would be examples of free offline games (although not video games). Would we call all online games "video" games? I think there might be potential free online games that do not deserve the label 'video' because they are purely text-based and do not utilize images. For example RetroMUD is an example of a MUD that would be a free non-video game. If dropping TP and getting Category:Free video games (to play seems overly detailed) then this could include the 'free online video games' which could also be under 'free online games' which could include video and non-video. Ranze (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah basically there just seems to be a lot of overlap here. Plus the titles are weird. Like one uses long terms "free-to-play", "video games" and the other makes these more concise "free" and "games". I was thinking maybe the 'to-play' could be dropped. This is also under a Category:Freeware games category so we have another potentially unnecessary complication of the word 'free'.
 * I think that the reason for the long titles is due to the need to distinguish the multiple meanings of 'free': gratis (free of cost) and libre (free of restrictions). That's not to say that these two categories shouldn't be merged, but I don't think that we can change freeware or free-to-play to simply free. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually in this case free-to-play also exists because games can be "free to play" but still charge to get some possible benefits from the game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose simply merging, although perhaps some cleanup and clarification/renaming is needed. Note also that this is part of the 'Video games by software license' tree. There is a distinction between a completely free unrestricted game, freeware (a 'free' game to download and play, restricted by some rules about redistribution, editing, and attribution), and a free-to-play game, which usually refers to server based games which can not be altered or redistributed and only be played for a restricted period set by the owner - even if that period is 'for as long as we run the servers'. Often the latter includes optional micro-transactions. --Qetuth (talk) 05:12, 8 March 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.