Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 29



Category:Plays by the Marquis de Sade

 * 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: speedy delete as empty. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting plays by the marquis de sade


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is completely empty and hence of no use. 89.139.177.244 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Should be tagged with db-catempty template, assuming it wasn't emptied out of process. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was emptied by the nominating IP recategorising its two articles: Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man into "Works by the Marquis de Sade", and Philosophy in the Bedroom into "Novels". --McGeddon (talk) 20:46, 9 December 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:Shinigami in Bleach

 * 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: relisted at CFD 2013 December 19. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Shinigami in Bleach to Category:Bleach characters
 * Nominator's rationale: This category is functionally pointless after the reduction of character articles. There are only three who don't fit into it, so it should just made into a single category. TTN (talk) 20:25, 29 November 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 killers

 * 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: relisted at CFD 2013 December 19. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting fictional killers


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overly broad inchoate category capturing everything from lawmen who killed in the line of duty to characters who accidentally caused a death to fictional demons. Unlike its sub-categories, which are much more focused and can for the most part be seen as occupational. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * keep for now, it's a useful container category. We could create more sub-cats to diffuse however. Have you looked at how it matches to our non-fiction structure?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. There is no Category:Killers. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First recategorize contents in subcats for anyone who fits, then purge, then merge to Category:Fictional characters by behavioral attribute. I concur that "killers" is rather vague, and a cannibal and an assassin have little in common (also, perhaps other people killed the food and the cannibals just ate it?) But I hope someone is willing to at least clean the category first and diffuse it to subcats as relevant, as otherwise potentially valid categorization could be missed, then the remnants (e.g. people who just, in the course of some novel, happened to kill someone by accident or in self-defence or ... it ends up being not defining, as sadly, many of our fictional heros still end up killing - wed' have to add Gandalf, and Frodo, and Bilbo, and Yoda, and Chewbacca, and ... I struggle to think of a sci-fi hero who hasn't killed someone.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * delete I don't see a reason for a container to hold Category:Fictional assassins together with Category:Fictional hunters; throw The Valiant Little Tailor into the mix (it clearly qualifies) and it continues to grow more absurd. Maybe a parent of those who have killed people might make sense, but this is overly broad and in many cases not remotely defining. Seyasirt (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * diffuse / move The act itself suffers from same issue as Fictional drivers or Fictional characters who can fly; nearly anyone can "kill". If I'm attacked in my sleep and wind up killing the assailant, that makes me a "killer" regardless if I'm not at fault. Could diffuse it with categories specific types of killers, like Category:Fictional rampage killers, Category:Fictional suicide bombers, Category:Fictional poisoners, Category:Fictional Typhoid Mary's, or Fictional characters who have committed manslaughter; or evenCharacters convicted of manslaughter. If kept as an profession-specific container, it should be renamed to Category:Fictional characters who are trained killers to better distinguish those who kill professionally (i.e. Wolverine) or as a sadistic "artform" (i.e. Hannibel Lectur), from commonplace amateur/criminal killers. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep & Purge Useful as a container category, but the individiual articles should be removed or moved to subcats. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete putting various categories that have little in common together (hunters, murderers, special forces, and zombies). Fictional people (and ex-people like zombies) can be morphed into anything - do we need them to be convicted like real people? A useless category in all scores. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:01, 3 December 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:Maloideae

 * 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) 20:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting maloideae


 * Nominator's rationale: From article Rosaceae: "The family [ Rosaceae ] was traditionally divided into four subfamilies: Rosoideae, Spiraeoideae, Maloideae, and Amygdaloideae, primarily diagnosed by the structure of the fruits. More recent work has identified that not all of these groups were monophyletic. A more modern model comprises three subfamilies [ Rosoideae, Dryadoideae, and Amygdaloideae ], one of which (Rosoideae) has largely remained the same." Content inside the square brackets was added by me to complete the context, but you can read the whole article. As shown in it, Maloideae is no longer considered a Rosaceae subfamily under modern models; I understand that Maloideae may deserve an article, even if it's only for historical reasons, but think that categories structure should mirror current taxonomical standards to avoid being misleading.Canyq (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: well expressed rationale for removing the category. Since the 2011 International Botanical Congress, the name of this subfamily cannot be applied to the taxonomic group as it is now understood. The page Maloideae, however, provides an important link to the older literature and should be retained. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:36, 29 November 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.

Politics of Orkney and Shetland

 * 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 as nominated. -Splash - tk 21:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Propose merging:
 * Category:Politics of the county of Orkney‎ to Category:Politics of Orkney‎
 * Category:Politics of the county of Shetland to Category:Politics of Shetland
 * Nominator's rationale: Pointless duplicates. There is no Category:County of Orkney‎ or Category:County of Shetland. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I support the rationale. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

However, I don't necessarily see everything that happens at CFD, so if you have some examples they could be evidence of a consensus to add a new speedy criterion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge per nominator. Could even be speedy merged as duplicates, in fact. Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply . Maybe we should have a speedy merge criterion for clear duplicates, but that is not one of the current criteria for speedily renaming categories, nor is it one of the general criteria for speedy deletion of pages. Or have I missed something? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's kind of strange, because I know for an absolute fact that duplicate categories are frequently speedy merged at CFD for that criterion without seven days of discussion. But it is what it is, I guess. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Bearcat, I can't recall seeing that myself, and I would object if I did see them. Speedy actions bypass consensus-building processes, and I am a firm believer that they should only be used where there is a clearly-documented consensus to bypass XFD.
 * Merge per nom. There is no difference in the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2014 (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:Burial sites of Presidents of the United States

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting burial sites of presidents of the united states


 * Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize cemeteries etc by who is buried there. This looks ("This is a list of...") like an attempt to create a list (inappropriately) in category space.  The subcategory should be moved up to here or moved to here.  For info: There is List of burial places of Presidents of the United States.  For info: A related category was recently deleted (although this category is not as bad as that one was). DexDor (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Most of the topics in this category (e.g. Arlington, Tennessee State Capitol,Washington National Cathedral) are not defined by being the burial places of presidents, and the exceptions (such as Monticello, the Eisenhower Presidential Center and the McKinley National Memorial) are already categorised by other aspects of their relationship with that President. We already have a List of burial places of Presidents of the United States, which does the job better. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-defining. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete While some of these places are defined by having a president buried there, others are not, and really categorizing places by who is buried there could create category clutter for a few major cemeteries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Most are not defining, better suited to a list. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 3 December 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:Rabbis whose tombs have become pilgrimage sites

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting rabbis whose tombs have become pilgrimage sites


 * Nominator's rationale: Whether (or not) someone's tomb has become a pilgrimage site is not generally a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the person. It's not how we usually categorise bio articles (it's the only "have become pilgrimage" category in EnWP).  Inclusion criteria are subjective. I've checked a sample of the articles in this category and all are in at least one other rabbis category so no upmerge is necessary. DexDor (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:OC. What level of visits is required to count as a "pilgrimage site"? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * that observation calls into question the validity of all "pilgrimage sites" categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * delete per nom, this is not defining of the Rabbis in question. Jim Morrison's grave in Paris is a bit of a pilgrimage location, but I don't think we should create 'rock stars whose graves have become pilgrimage destinations' either... Note that is a decently populated category, so if we had articles about the tombs themselves - e.g. if the tombs can pass GNG, then the tombs could be categorized in .--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as subjective. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete perhaps everything is a pilgrimage site to those who visit it, even McDonald's. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:04, 3 December 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:The Hogs

 * 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:Washington Redskins players.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting the hogs


 * Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge Per other such line-up categories. We don't have Category:1973 Miami Dolphins special team. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - breaking out subsets of players by nickname is trivial. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:46, 29 November 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:Purple People Eaters

 * 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:Minnesota Vikings players. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting purple people eaters


 * Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge: Per other such line-ups categories below. Categorizing by one (part of) one line-up of a sports team is a bad idea. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - breaking out subsets of players by nickname is trivial. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:46, 29 November 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:Green Bay Packers championship 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: merge  to Category:Green Bay Packers postseason. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting green bay packers championship games


 * Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge There is no scheme of Championship games by team. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I think there should be a category structure of subdividing championship games by team. A useful way to subdivide the championship games plus Super Bowls is by the teams who competed in them. Another advantage is that the games would appear under the category for the team in a natural manner.  Royal broil  02:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * merge back to Category:Green Bay Packers postseason as is done for every other team. Even the largest of these, for the LA Rams, has less than thirty members; the other "large" one have around fifteen. Seyasirt (talk) 14:30, 1 December 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:The Dream Backfield

 * 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:Chicago Cardinals players.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting the dream backfield


 * Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge Trivial line-up. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - breaking out subsets of players by nickname is trivial. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:46, 29 November 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:The Steel Curtain

 * 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:Pittsburgh Steelers players.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting the steel curtain


 * Nominator's rationale: Trivial. Alternately, rename Category:Steel Curtain per main article. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - breaking out subsets of players by nickname is trivial. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:47, 29 November 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:Chicago Bears training camp venues

 * 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) 20:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting chicago bears training camp venues


 * Nominator's rationale: Trivial association, no scheme for training venues by NFL franchise —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * keep it fits into the scheme of and  and . --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * delete d'oh, I can't believe those are all red links. Seriously? But this one has to go, it's not defining of those places. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:41, 4 December 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.