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 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.
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 both, just adding "United States". There isn't consensus as to whether it should be "navy" or "naval", nor what the capitalization should be (and the little research I did referenced the fields using both navy and naval, and with upper and lowercase). Kbdank7113:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The landing fields in these categories are all United States Navy fields; they are subcategories of Category:United States Navy air stations. The current names suggest that the categories are for outlying naval fields or auxiliary landing fields regardless of country/navy. The proposed names also changes "Outlying Fields" to the generic "outlying fields" and "Auxiliary Landing Fields" to the generic "auxiliary landing fields", since when used generically these are not proper nouns. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk)22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but not quite per nom. In both cases the correct term is "naval" rather than "navy", as reflected in the names of the articles. I also googled both variants, with these results: "Naval Outlying Fields" - 3500 hits; "Navy Outlying Fields" - 242 hits. I was already planning to take the parent cat, Category:United States Navy air stations, to CFD for similar renaming, so these will all remain consistent. Cgingold (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Delete; rename if kept. It's not a good use of the category system to use it to categorize members of an organization. That's just way, way too broad. Businesses join, are members of, or are regulated by all manner of coalitions, lobbying groups, boards, stock exchanges, etc. It's an aspect of doing business that is much better handled by references, where appropriate in the body of the member's article, and by a list of members (if appropriate) in the organization's article. This sort of categorization should only be done in exceptional circumstances; not routine business memberships. --Lquilter (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Delete; rename if kept. It's not a good use of the category system to use it to categorize members of an organization. That's just way, way too broad. Businesses join, are members of, or are regulated by all manner of coalitions, lobbying groups, boards, stock exchanges, etc. It's an aspect of doing business that is much better handled by references, where appropriate in the body of the member's article, and by a list of members (if appropriate) in the organization's article. This sort of categorization should only be done in exceptional circumstances; not routine business memberships. --Lquilter (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename In reply to Lquilter, the use of a category is not way, way too broad, as this would basically be akin to being indiscriminate, and it is not, a company is either a member of the trade group or they are not. Of course businesses join trade groups, but these are major and notable trade groups (often having observer status at other organisations such as the Arab League, ICAO, etc), and is not akin to say being a member of a chamber of commerce which any company could join and is way too broad. And particularly in the case of the AACO, the group has led to the possible forming of an Category:Airline alliances. I see no reason as to why notable company groups should be treated any differently than any other grouping on wikipedia, for example, Category:G8 nations, Category:Capitol Records artists, Category:Ohio Democrats, etc.
Please sign your comments in the future. It is "way, way too broad" because entities may belong to many organizations. So, no, viewed from the organizational perspective it's discrete; but viewed from the perspective of the entities about which the articles are written, and viewed from the perspective of rational categorizing practice, it is way too broad. Categories should be applied to "defining" attributes; see WP:CAT. Membership in an organization, trade affiliation, etc., may be financially or legally significant to the operation of the business, but it's certainly not "defining". As for the other examples you mention, those aren't before the CFD right now. It may be that there are particular reasons why those affiliations are defining, or it may be that if reviewed, those would also be deleted as categories. Either way, their existence doesn't support the continued non-useful and potentially massively overcluttery category. --Lquilter (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain how this could be a potentially massively overclutter category? There very defined entry agreements into the AACO (for example, you will never see Iran Air as a member, nor American Airlines, nor South African Airways), and the AACO is a very influential organisation in the Arab world, particularly in matters which formulate civil aviation policy as the Arab League. The airlines which are voluntarily members see their membership in IATA and the AACO as being quite defining in their business (IATA being a cartel - the airline version of OPEC - which sets fare levels). --РоссавиаДиалог00:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Main article was deleted due to POV and OR concerns. This category now supports a topic we do not document. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per all of the same reasons that the category was kept when it was discussed five weeks ago. Nothing has changed about the category and the AFD is not binding on CFD. Otto4711 (talk)
1) There is no limit to which an article or cat can be nominated for deletion. 2) The discussion that led to "keep" five weeks ago was contingent on the fact that the article was called "Pashtun Mafia". That article has been deleted. Ford MF (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete Category is an obvious WP:BLP violation. With the exception of the sole article about the gang's founder, Larry Hoover, pretty much all of the other entries are for rappers, the basis for which must be entirely speculative, as none of the articles even mention the Gangster Disciples. Ford MF (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The vast majority of "English organists" are in fact "English classical organists", and a simplier treatment would be to simply merge these two categories into "English organists". The intention of the "English organists" category does not appear to be a differentiation of these organists as non-classical. Nor does "English organists" contain any subcategories other than "English classical organists". Noca2plus (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this proposal, which if implemented would drive a coach and horses through the current scheme for categorising musicians for no good reason:
Category:English organists appears to have several articles that could be better categorized as classical organists. That does not mean that the two categories are duplicates; it merely illustrates that the categorisation process is incomplete.
In short, there is no reason given why English classical organists should be treated any differently to the established structure prevailing elsewhere. Any apparent anomalies (such as all English organists apparently being classical, yet needing to be kept in their own sub-category) should be readily understandable once the overall context is seen. BencherliteTalk09:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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.
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.
Keep Most of the people in the categories are not in any other categories so its not over categorization at all. State and National Hall of Fame entry is the most important milestone for most of these people. You wouldn't consider deleting the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a category, yet for these people this is their equivalent of that. Just as with RandRHOF almost everyone in that category has many, many other categories added. I really don't think the Wittemann brothers are over categorized, yet if you look at The Beatles, we don't consider them over categorized. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your argument. It is still overcategorization even when there aren't any other categories? Ok, you thought of one, so now there are two. And as you know, not every aviator is in the HoF, aviators is a supracategory. Over categorization is when we had "left handed, women" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overcategorization is not solely about reducing the number of categories on a particular article or articles. It's also about making sure that categories deal with the defining characteristics of the subjects. Sticking with aviators as an example, is for instance Charles Lindbergh defined as an inductee to the Aviation Hall of Fame of New Jersey? Is anyone likely, when thinking of Lindbergh, to think "ah yes, Aviation Hall of Fame of New Jersey inductee Charles Lindbergh"? Were Lindbergh alive today, would anyone introducing him to a general audience introduce him as "AHoFoNJ inductee Charles Lindbergh"? No. Otto4711 (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete all per Otto. These are great examples of the kind of things that lists work best for, in my opinion; they are generally not defining. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete. Halls of fame are practically the definition of non-defining awards; they are in almost all cases recognitions of fame already achieved for some other reason, and in no way indicate that the fame is achieved because of the Hall of Fame recognition. There's nothing wrong with the information, which is worthwhile as a note among the honors section in the articles of the people, and certainly articles about halls of fame benefit from having lists of notable, representative, or all honorees. --Lquilter (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the halls of fames themselves are notable (admittedly, I haven't clicked through every single one). However, I'd support a rename of "inductees" as suggested, but to delete all of these because of "overcategorization" makes no sense to me. A Hall of Fame induction in a respective field seems on par to an allowable award recipient category. Jauerbackdude?/dude.13:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? How? Yes, it's an award recipient category, but how is it a "defining" attribute (WP:CAT) to be a Hall of Fame recipient? You realize that people create all kinds of halls of fame for all kinds of reason, and that many of them are, well, silly. Someone might be in a hall of fame for every tiny city they ever lived in, for instance. ... At any rate, I don't think you can just blanket exempt the whole lot. If you want to keep some of them, I think you have to explain how that particular category is defining. I looked at each of them and thought they could all be deleted as non-defining. --Lquilter (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, "...if the halls of fames themselves are notable...". I guess that wasn't clear. Jauerbackdude?/dude.
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.
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.
Rationale- generally this is a category which appears to be listing fictional characters with a "mental illness", however to me it appears to be a POV category and many of the characters listed are 1) Comic book villains which even then have no real verification of a "mental illness" 2) characters with no verifacation of a mental illness but have been put there by a users opinion, and 3) about 2 actual characters that actually have something not right. The category has been built on "unsourced" original research. AndreNatas (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems like standard comic book characters (as opposed to special ones, like in Maus or V for Vendetta) should have a separate subtree under fictional characters, since they are so... messed up (and prone to frequent retconning) 70.51.8.110 (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep struth it seems like every day you people are nominating "category: fictional (something)" for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKR619 (talk • contribs) 07:29, March 23, 2008
Comment: I'm leaning toward either deletion or possibly renaming to Category:Fictional characters with diagnosed mental illness. In principle, this should be a very valuable category. But I'm afraid that AndreNatas is quite right in his assessment of how it's actually being used. My impression is that the most serious abuse results from the inclusion of comic book characters, which inherently tend to be bizarre caricatures. So I'm thinking that perhaps they should be confined to their own universes -- i.e. excluded entirely -- which might go a long way toward dealing with the problems that have been noted. Maybe we should give that a try, and then revisit this category if it still appears to be a problem. Cgingold (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may need to be re-listed to achieve some sort of consensus on how to proceed. It certainly should not be left as-is, given how messed up the contents are. Cgingold (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank7113:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename per Cgingold. Of the two options I lean far more towards deletion. "Mental illness" as diagnosed by whom? When? Would the hero of The Well of Loneliness be included on the list, since the novel takes place before 1973, when homosexuality was still included in the DSM as a mental illness? The category essentially puts editors in the place of psychiatric diagnosers. For comparision, there is no category like this for real-person biographies, only Category:People by medical or psychological condition (which is not really ideal either). Ford MF (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Delete as overcategorization by award. Norman Borlaug would do much better to have this noted on his article, and have the hall of fame include a link to him among its recipients. Category is not defining and not helpful here. --Lquilter (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Merge per nom. Unlike the original category, this newly-created category has no parent cats. If the creator had taken the step of locating the category tree, she would (hopefully) have seen that the wanted category already existed. I also note that all of the sibling categories follow the convention of Category:Translators to LanguageXX. Cgingold (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, Duplicate categories. Either nationality adjective is "correct"; most other categories for Slovenia use "Slovenian" and the target category existed first. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory(talk)08:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the art of the Category:Slovenian artists (who should be properly renamed to Slovene artists) falls in the latter category: the language and the people. Slovenia is a very young country that exists only from 1991 onwards but the art of Slovenes - the Slovene art - has been in existence for a much longer time (at least several centuries). Therefore, as consensus has been established to use Slovene for the people and Slovenian for the country. Slovenian art could be at most a tiny subcategory of Slovene art. --Eleassarmy talk17:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact we usually apply nationality retrospectively, or (even more) chaos would ensue. Slovenia has been a defined political unit, if not an independent nation, for much longer than the last twenty years, and happily has rather fewer definitional issues, in terms of borders and ethnic groups, than most other european nations. Johnbod (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Another one of those neologism genre. Category was created in 2004 and contains only one artist Sol Invictus. Article page for that band does not even use the term pagan folk. No evidence or reference to support the use of the term for the band. Bardin (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for a television series. Aside from the two subcategories, which are already otherwise categorised, the only category members are the main article and a navigational template. – Black Falcon(Talk)03:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
