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. This is an unusual category and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. It combines three things: refugee status, century, and eventual notable achievement of the person. It doesn't have any immediate logical parents, like Category:20th-century refugees or Category:Refugees ennobled in the United Kingdom. It could be misread as suggesting that they were ennobled when they were refugees, which of course is not true. On balance, given it's problems, I suggest deletion, unless someone has a better idea. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify - this is actually quite an interesting topic, but I don't think it's handled well as a category. A list page with some basic biographical info would be welcome. TheGrappler (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then delete. It's a 4-way intersection, not appropriate for a category. The "20th century" can probably be omitted from the list too. - Fayenatic(talk)20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to removed 20thC. We have recently got rid of a lot of 20th/21st century categories by merger inot a parent and this should be no exception. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no objection to listifying if a suitable location exists) - Even if we remove the century designation, we still are left with an ambiguous triple-intersection of refugee status, attainment of nobility, and country (Category:Refugees ennobled in the United Kingdom). Are these people who were refugees to the United Kingdom or from the United Kingdom (the category description clarifies that it is the former, but the category title does not)? Did their status as a refugee have anything to do with their ennoblement? -- Black Falcon(talk)00:49, 5 June 2010 (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.
Category:Gordon J. Laing Award
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.
Category:Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories
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.
Speedy delete per nom. The creation of this category in the middle of the discussion to delete the now-deleted Category:Companies operating in Israeli-occupied territories was completely inappropriate. If a user anticipates that a category they would prefer to retain is about to be deleted, they should not be able to avoid this result by making a new category that is worded slightly differently but essentially accomplishes the same purpose that the original category was meant to accomplish. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP I not create category, it already exist. But it important category that need to differentiate between company base in Israel and in area that current occupy by Israel military. Ani medjool (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This couldn't be deleted faster. It was created in absolute bad faith, in the middle of the deletion process of the same category with two words rearranged. Editors need to be shown that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated. The existence of this category is only causing added drama and edit wars. Breein1007 (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Malik Shabazz claim that it was created to avoid the delete conclusion of another category is inaccurate. This category was created specially for the Israeli companies operating in the occupied territories, products Israel creates in its settlements which is a subject that is discussed in many different places, so it has notability. If the reader sees that the category is empty now is because several pro-Israeli editors have removed the category from all Israeli articles operating in the occupied territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the cat page takes you to Israeli-Occupied Territories, and therefore that is what the cat should be, but alas, that was voted in the CFD as delete so this is just a way to work around that. Yossiea(talk)23:29, 22 April 2010 (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.
Category:Joseph Campbell
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: This is a category full of articles related to Joseph Campbell, many of them biographies of other people e.g. Jackie Onassis. Since those articles may be safely accessed by wikilink if they are relevant, and there is a navbox for Joseph campbell already, I don't see this category as necessary. TheGrappler (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2010 (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.
Category:Cornish immigrants to 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 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:Privately owned Government companies in India
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.
Comment -- I know little of the subject, and agree that we have an oxymoron, but I think that BHG (in Ireland) and me (in England) should be very wary of seeking to impose our views of what can exist on a land as complex as India. I would support Twiceuponatime's suggestion or Category:Privately-run Government companies in India, both of which seem to fit the definition in the headnote better than the present title. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. Besides the oxymoronic title ... though governments work in mysterious ways, their wonders to perform :-) this is especially clear from the last sentence of the description, "These companies are run by the Directors of the company and he/she is assisted by the workers of his/her caste." (emphasis added). The creator Bob hoekstra (talk· contribs) has made other disparaging edits about Bharat Dynamics Limited[1], and if I had to guess it is just a frustrated (potential?) employee using wikipedia as a soapbox. Abecedare (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vandalism. The category note is testament to the nonsense that this category is. There are autonomous entities among the public sector undertakings, but that doesn't appear to be what this category is about anyway and if required it's better to start a clean category for that. —SpacemanSpiff04:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Complete nonsense, the companies in the category are government-controlled and there aren't any privately-owned government companies in India. Moreover, the category note is unsourced OR. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2010 (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.
Category:People from Nyeri, Kenya
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.
Category:People from Central Province
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.
Category:Highly Hazardous Chemicals
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:Listify. There seems to be enough interest in keeping the material, but the specificity to one U.S. agency doesn't garner consensus for keeping it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is article or list material, not defining categorization material. There are other organizations which no doubt have their own lists of the ones that are highly hazardous, and if we proliferate them that's a recipe for category clutter. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I almost said "keep", this is a good category, but then found that the parent article is, and only ever has been, a redirect, and that the category is woefully underpopulated. (Or are there really only 34 "Highly Hazardous Chemicals"?) I think this category *is* a good idea, and am happy to single out the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the defining body for "Highly hazardous chemicals", subject to change upon a good argument. However, the parent article needs to be flesh out first, and then the category needs to be completed, otherwise this category should be deleted due to being misleading. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good parent article is needed. Is there a difference between "highly hazardous" and "toxic and highly hazardous". Does "highly hazardous" exclude things like "Super highly hazardous"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think what a parent article would say other than what is on the existing category page. Assuming that the American taste for hazards is unlikely to be much different from classification in other countries, I'm inclined to weak keep and populate. - Fayenatic(talk)20:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is not a subjective (i.e. POV) category, because the contents are limited to those designated by a US public body. However, I am not familiar with this American system, being British and not involved in chemistry since leaving university nearly 40 years ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify to Highly Hazardous Chemical per Good Ol'factory: "undue weight is being given to one organization's [OSHA's] classification scheme". There is no doubt that a listing of HHCs can be useful, but categorization must consider not only the potential utility of the grouping but also the definingness of the characteristic for the articles which the category contains. If this was an internationally-accepted and definitive listing on the level of the IUCN Red List, then I would support its existence; as it stands, however, this is a list published by a single nation's health and safety agency. -- Black Falcon(talk)00:03, 5 June 2010 (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.
Category:Television shows with named seasons
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.
Rename if kept but it seems to be a variant on 'Categorisation by shared name', which would require delete. (Inclusion criteria would be nice.) Occuli (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really borderline keep/delete, but any possible names don't seem to work which tips it over the edge. (in the US we have "seasons" of a show, but the UK term for a single year's worth of programmes is a "series" (i.e. Doctor Who series 3)...) - The Bushranger (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2010 (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.
Category:RationalWikians
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 - No article on RationalWiki, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration. Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories, so we need to limit this to ones that have articles. VegaDark (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (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.
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Club Penguin Wikis
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 - No article on the Club Penguin Wiki, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration. Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories, so we need to limit this to ones that have articles. VegaDark (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories..." even assuming it set a precedent, which leaving it be, or listing and keeping do not, per POKEMON, OTHERSTUFFEXSITS etc, what is the harm of a few thousand user categories?
"No article on the Club Penguin Wiki, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration" - on the contrary the cat does not suggest that these Wikipedians are experts on the subject of the Club Penguin Wiki (although they may be) but on the (vastly more important - and once AfD'd) Club Penguin.
1) Per WP:USERCAT, the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. A few thousand user categories that don't do this (or even one) dilutes the goal of user categories and therefore causes harm by merely existing. 2) In that case a more appropriate category would be Category:Wikipedians interested in Club Penguin. Such a category runs the risk of being too narrow to adequately foster collaboration, however. Usually user categories should encompass at least 4-5 potential articles to collaborate on, otherwise talk pages are more appropriate. VegaDark (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2010 (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.
Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Memory Gamma
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 - No article on the Memory Gamma, so a user category can't facilitate collaboration. Allowing a category for members of every non-notable wiki would open the door for thousands of similar categories, so we need to limit this to ones that have articles. VegaDark (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2010 (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.
Category:People of Kohanim descent
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. This is an unnecessary category which overlaps Category:Kohanim. For people who are notKohanim in the eyes of halakha (Jewish law) — such as a man whose maternal grandfather was a Kohen — the classification of "Kohanim descent" has no halachic value and is at most a coffee-table tidbit. A woman whose father is a Kohen (called a bat Kohen in Jewish law) might be included in Category:Kohanim, although this would probably be important only to Conservative Jewish women, who might want their own category, Category:Women kohanim. Yoninah (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, I completely agree with the nominator. Another strong argument to delete this category is that the specific ancestry of being descended from a kohen but not being a kohen yourself is never considered, mentioned, valued etc. It is not notable, so to say. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am looking through all the names in this category and adding the categorization of Category:Kohanim where applicable, so that they will be categorized as kohanimsomewhere. I'm finding that quite a few people, men and women, who have "Cohen" as a surname have been placed in Category:People of Kohanim descent, which is not necessarily correct, since Jewish families often changed their names to Cohen to avoid the draft (as in 19th century Russia). Yoninah (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Bas Kohen does have some halachic issues that apply regarding terumah, etc. but that is b/c as long as she does not marry a non-Kohen, she is a Koheness and such may eat terumos etc. -- Avi (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2010 (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.
Category:Converts to Orthodox independent denominations from Eastern Orthodoxy
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. These two categories are kind of meaningless. The people in the categories left or were excommunicated from one Eastern Orthodox church and joined a different Eastern Orthodox Church. The Old Believers are a movement within Eastern Orthodoxy. None of these people converted from Eastern Orthodoxy at all, they just became associated with different churches in the overall movement. It would kind of be like saying, "Converts to Sufism from Islam" or "Converts to Methodism from Protestantism". Doesn't make sense. Good Ol’factory(talk)06:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The founding fathers of the movement should not be categorized under "converts" in first place. One note: the continuum of Old Believers, taken broadly, is not all Eastern Orthodox. There are plenty of cults (mostly extinct now) that are clearly non-Christian. NVO (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2010 (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.
Category:Self-released albums
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.
Wait, then there's a problem here. I'm not sure what the original contents of Category:Independent albums were, but if I take a stab at it, it seems that a lot (but not all) of these albums were released from independent record labels—a large majority which are not notable. This can be seen from the contents of Category:Self-released albums. So, if anything, the deleted category's contents weren't very well looked in to. A split might be worth considering. — ξxplicit04:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Self-released albums would be independently-released, but if anything, they should be a subcatregory. Simply put, releasing an album yourself and releasing it on SST are two different things, even if both of those mean that you are avoiding the Big Four. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The present title appears to be clear and precise. Possibly "self-published" might be even clearer, but I do not think that term is used for records. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2010 (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.
Category:Works by Aoi Nishimata
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: With only three articles, all of which are listed in her biography, this category is completely unnecessary. Even if all of the works she has been involved with are included, it would only be 7 articles. —Farix (t | c) 01:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure IINFO applies here. This category is certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information. When we routinely say it's OK for now defunct bands that have only ever produced one album and will never again produce another album to have a category dedicated to their albums, it seems strange that the same rationale would not apply to categories for other works. Here, we have three works in the category, and if there were 7, that would seem to be quite a robust category for a creator's works. Good Ol’factory(talk)09:39, 27 April 2010 (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.
Category:Whitegoods manufacturers of China
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.
Rename per nom, but not per GGG - a. categories are not primarily meant to be looked up, and b. many people would use "white goods" as a known term rather than "home appliances" "household appliances" "domestic appliances" etc. Nonetheless rename, since most manufacturers make both or neither. RichFarmbrough, 17:51, 22 April 2010 (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.
Category:Volcanoes by Volcanic Explosivity Index
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 Category:Volcanoes by highest known Volcanic Explosivity Index of eruption. Consensus does not exist to do anything in this nomination. However, all participants agree that the category title, and thus all the subcategory titles, contain a factual inaccuracy. So while the utility of the category has not been agreed to be low, the category title must change to be one that isn't wrong. I picked the best name I could find from the nomination, but certainly don't think it's great. Further nominations are recommended, and they should include the subcategories.Mike Selinker (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. VEI is not a characteristic of volcanoes but of eruptions. A volcano cannot have a VEI. Thus, this category and its subcategories are meaningless. 94.196.237.72 (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge work done to Volcanic_Explosivity_Index#List_of_eruptions and delete when done. Indexing by this measure is not a good use of the category system, especially not when the index list is so incomplete. Categorisation is not flexible enough for this developing idea (in terms of wikipedia content). Very likely, Volcanic_Explosivity_Index#List_of_eruptions will need breaking into multiple pages when it fills out, and maybe then some useful categorisation need will become apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs)
The list in the VEI article is already too large to be very useful as a list of examples, and I agree with the comments at Talk:Volcanic_Explosivity_Index#examples about the futility of trying to create a comprehensive list of eruptions on Wikipedia. It is also often not clear what eruption led to a volcano being put into these categories (see Glacier Peak or Stromboli, to take a couple of randomly chosen examples). So I don't thinking merging this information into that list would be easy or useful. I would have more sympathy for a separate List of volcanoes by size of largest eruption, which seems to be what the categories were trying to record. --Avenue (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Things are not so easy. There are volcanoes as Yellowstone hotspot that will regularly (all 700 ka) have an explosive eruption by silica rich magma, and so have high VEIs. Probably it will do it again in our lifetime. Others like Hawaii (island) erupt silica poor lava. The Katla volcanic system erupts transitional alkalic lava and is dangerous. The central volcanoes of Iceland erupt tholeiitic lava and are not so dangerous. We could keep VEI 5 to VEI 8, and VEI lower than 5, instead. Volcanoes in monogenetic volcanic field have not VEIs greater than 4. Volcanoes, lava types, and VEI of its eruptions are linked... --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This appears to be a perfectly rational category tree of whcih the nominated category is an appropriate parent. Possibly rename, but the articles are largely about volcanoes, not articles about theri particular eruptions. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify to Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes/Volcanoes by Volcanic Explosivity Index (or similar) so that it can be improved and readied for mainspace. Although this information is significant, I think that it is not suited to being the basis for a category. There are simply too many issues, not least of which is the fact that volcanoes tend to experience multiple eruptions of varying size, leaving open the way for overcategorization. -- Black Falcon(talk)23:53, 4 June 2010 (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.
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
