Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 18

< February 17 February 19 >

February 18

Category:Carnival 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: Rename to Category:Carnival in the United States. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC) (Typo fixed. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC) )[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Carnival of the United States to Category:Carnivals in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Needs to be plural and isn't the norm form here to use 'in' and not 'of'? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you might be right there. Rename to Category:Carinval in the United States, then. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:23, 20 February 2012 (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.

Someone might want to move this to the correct spelling, currently it is at "carinval", should be carnival. Heiro 20:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Relief workers in Noakhali

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/no rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Relief workers in Noakhali to Category:To be determined by consensus
or alternatively, delete
Nominator's rationale: This is category was uncategorised, so I added it to Category:Massacres in India, since it relates to those who acted as relief workers after the Noakhali genocide. I have several concerns about this category, including:
  1. I can't find any other categories for relief workers
  2. If kept, where does this fit in the category tree? I can't find anywhere that seems like a neat fit
  3. The category includes some highly notable people such as M. K. Gandhi and Dhirendranath Datta. I wonder whether their role in Noakhali was a defining characteristic of such people.
  4. The article Noakhali genocide has been challenged over alleged lack of neutrality. I am in no position to make a substantive judgement on that, but I wonder about the neutrality of categorising only those on one side of an ethnic conflict. If we are going to keep this, shouldn't it be as part of a categorisation all notable people from that episode?
I don't have answers to those questions, so I am neutral for now on what to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Noticeboard for India-related topics has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Your concerns about the category are answered below.
  1. Yes, there are no other categories for relief workers. However, we should keep in mind that Noakhali genocide was an such a shocking incident, that political leaders, social workers and women's rights activists from all over British India went to Noakhali for relief and rescue operations. No other ethnic conflict in India attracted so many social workers, who would stay there months after months. Some of the relief workers settled there and spent their entire life. In case of such a unique historical event, I believe it is justified in having a category for the relief workers in Noakhali.
  2. Most of the relief workers were social workers and women's rights activists. Therefore Category:relief workers in Noakhali may be kept under Category:Indian social workers.
  3. For people like M. K. Gandhi, Noakhali was an important episode. Please refer to Pyarelal Nayyar's Mahatma Gandhi: The Last Phase. Mahatma Gandhi, at the age of 77, spent four months in makeshift camp and toured village after village in barefoot to harvest unity and drive out ill feeling between the Muslims and the Hindus. Today, Mahatma is known in Bangladesh mainly for his tour of Noakhali. In Noakhali there is even an ashram in his name. Dhirendranath Datta was the local leader. He was from Comilla town and he visited the affected region first and made provisions of the earliest relief efforts. For others like Nirmal Kumar Basu, Ashoka Gupta, Leela Roy or Nellie Sengupta, the relief efforts in Noakhali constituted a significant part of their career activities. This can be verified from their books. Ashoka Gupta, especially was known for her relief activities in Noakhali.
  4. It is not about categorising people on one side of the conflict. It is about people who took part in relief operations. It was not that none from the other side took part in relief operations, though they may be few in numbers. Most notable among them was Amtus Salam. Unfortunately there is no WP article on her. Her name should be added to this category as and when there is a WP article about her.
I hope I have answered your questions. BengaliHindu (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The Rationale are as follows.
  1. Noakhali cannot be categorised as an ethnic conflict/riot, it can only be categorised as a well planned one sided communal assault by Muslim League on hapless hindu citizens who were a microscopic minority with active connivance of the Muslim league government. In 1946 this incident was preceded by the Great Calcutta Killings and consequently polarised Hindus and Muslims beyond repair. Hence it is only natural that Muslims well desist from taking part in releif operation for the benefit of riot affected Hindus.
  2. For MK Gandhi Noakhali was one of the important episodes if not the most important incident. It is to be noted that after Gandhi's visit to Noakhali this incident attracted attention of the press and general masses. Prior to this incident noakhali was cut-off from the outside world by Muslim League ex MLA Goloam Sarwar by cutting telegraph lines etc in order to facilitate murder and rape without hindrance. The incidents of Noakhali got reported in the "statesman" weeks after it occured. Unknown.citizen12 (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Many terrible things happened during the India/Pakistan partition. It is almost inevitable that the Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh will have have one POV on them and the Hindus of India a different POV. WP seeks a NPOV position. I have not examined all the articles, but wonder if all the relief workers were acting purely from humanitarian (rather than partisan political) motives. I suspect that we need to start by finding a NPOV title for the article, after which it should not be difficult to find a NPOV one for this. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performer by performance. We shouldn't categorize relief workers by the various disasters they attend. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasoning above. The group is referred to as "relief workers" by the academic literature on the topic, even the satyagrahi is called thus, and it would require original research on our part to rename the group something else. Finding the NPOV in ethnic strife is an insurmountable task for the human race, so I don't think attempting to resolve that issue first will lead to a new name for the category. Pseudofusulina (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2012 (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:Book Sense Book of the Year winners

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:Indies Choice Book Award winning works. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Book Sense Book of the Year winners to Category:Book Sense Book of the Year winning works or Category:Indies Choice Book Award winning works
Nominator's rationale: Administrative relisting. This was the one category in a previous discussion that requires further consideration. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion
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 all except Book Sense which could do with further discussions. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: An attempt to standardize the Category:Books by award subcategories. Where people appear in these categories, they should be split out. I'm also fine with "...winning books" in most cases, but there are a few outliers in these categories, such as stories, poems, and the occasional broadcast.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More than books: Aurealis, Tiptree, Kitschies (unless restricted to Red Tentacle like I've done), Lambda, Franklin, Quill, Sahitya Akademi, Sidewise,
Only books: Book Sense, Booker, Caldecott (picture books), Endeavour, Golden Kite (includes illustration), Campbell, Printz, both National Book Awards, National Book Critics Circle, both Newberys, Orange, Prometheus, Whitbread (I think--the poetry category seems to be poetry books)
In the process of this, I updated some of the nominations to spell out the names better. Whitbread has changed to Costa Book Award. We might also consider renaming the Book Sense one to Category:Indies Choice Book Award winning works (or ...books) since the award was recently renamed to Indies Choice Book Award. However, none of our articles except the main one are named thusly.-Mike Selinker (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mike, for that comprehensive list. Looks like it was a lot of work, but it's very useful.
It looks like 2/3 of the awards are for books only, but the 1/3 which include other types of work are too many to make an exception of, so I think it's better to standardise on "works". I have stricken the "weak" qualifier on my !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okey-doke.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm generally opposed to the wholesale change. Many on the list are already correct according to the nominator's rationale - i.e. "Lambda Literary Award winning books" should be for the books - and that particular award is for books, not general works. "Book Sense Book of the Year winners" seems to be for the people that won the award, not the works. I can see creating cats for the people to compliment the works, but renaming them doesn't seem right - in general, it's the author that gets to take home the award, right? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First, proceed slowly. The list may be composed hastily. For example, Category:Book Sense Book of the Year awards should be renamed Category: Book Sense Book of the Year and given the "container" preface. Second, why not a simpler scheme such as "laureates" for authors and "winners" for works? Third, I dislike our alliterations "for Fiction" and "Award winning works". Thus in case of National Book Awards --which now has Category: National Book Award winners for authors; where "for Fiction" is unofficial-- I would prefer {National Book Award laureates, Fiction; National Book Award winners, Fiction; National Book Award laureates, Young People's Literature; National Book Award winners, Young People's Literature}. Anyway, I prefer "winning books" to "winning works".
For a month I have been talking to myself about this (Category talk:National Book Award for Young People's Literature winners). I support some distinction in (sub)category names that is reasonably consistent across awards, regardless of official terminology. --P64 (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to considering a rename of the "winners" (people) categories, though that seems like it should be a separate nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Category:Hugo Awards contains subcats "H A winners" and "H A winning works" for authors and works, names consistent with the rationale presented here, but the latter in turn contains poorly-named subcats Category:Hugo Award Winners for Best Non-Fiction Book and so on. Supposing that "Best Non-Fiction Book" is official, I would prefer "Hugo Award winning works, Best Non-Fiction Book" and the current set of nominations suggests "Hugo Award for Best Non-Fiction Book winning works". (The same goes for Category:Nebula Award winning works and its subcats.) --P64 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a nomination about Hugos and Nebulas here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this proposal part of a move to make cats "Writers by award" and "Books by award" both pure and comprehensive? If so, and we grant the same respect to their parent Category:Literary awards, then we need a parent category for every literary award that warrants placing its winners in any award-related category.
If so, then the proposal in regard to Tiptree and Orange categories is no more than a useful shortcut (because most of their members happen to be winning works). New categories should immediately be created under the old names, containing the renamed winners cat, the main article, the lists. The parent category will naturally belong in Category:Categories named after awards and will include main article, ancillary articles and lists, and any subcategories for winning authors and winning books (eg see Category:Lambda Literary Awards). If I understand correctly, neither main articles, nor ancillary articles and lists, nor subcategories for winners will belong in Category: Science fiction awards, Category:Awards established in 1988, and so on —those will contain the parent categories (eg, the latter should include Category:Lambda Literary Awards rather than Lambda Literary Award). --P64 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My other concern is that "National Book Award for Young People's Literature" and that ilk may be nicknames coined in the news industry or even by wikipedia editors rather than official names of awards. Where that is true, the proposal keeps intact the name of our main article rather than the name of the award. Perhaps this should be discussed regarding the next-day Hugos and Nebulas proposal. --P64 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to recreating the parent categories after the works are moved.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notes on current -02-16 parent and sibling categories

Bullet points concern all Categories nominated above, in the same order.

Beside the parent categories identified here, two other members of Category:Categories named after awards are named for books.

Category:Ambassador Book Award --is a parent with subcat "winners" for books, none for authors
Category:British Book Awards --is a parent with subcats "winners" and "winning works" for authors and books

No doubt other "Categories named after awards" do concern book awards.

Some author and book categories that I have identified here may be missing from Category:Writers by award and Category:Books by award. Meanwhile some parent or general categories are members of both.

Other sightings:

Category: Winners of the Sir Arthur Clarke Award —There may be a general point but this is not a literary award; I confused it with the literary Arthur C. Clarke Award for which we have only lists.
"Recipients of the ..." and "... recipients" (various)
"Field Medalists" (not literary)

--P64 (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I completely missed the Ambassador category. I've added it to the nomination list at the top. Also, the Book Sense category seems to be complex on several levels. Maybe we should drop it for this nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambassador is a paradigm case. Yes, drop Book Sense.
I have edited that report by insertion (green), boldface, and more consistent use of "contains".
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 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:Roseens

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:Alumni of Institut Le Rosey, due to the other subcats of Category:Alumni by secondary school. If someone wants to nom the whole tree, feel free. - jc37 01:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Roseens to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: This category, for alumni of Institut Le Rosey, has the wrong name by all standards. According to the list article it's using almost the French form "Roséens" rather than the English "Roseans", but both of these are truncated as they should be "Anciens Roséens" or Old Roseans". However whichever of these is used it is inaccessible to all but those in the know and a reader friendly form like Category:Alumni of Institut Le Rosey (per Category:Alumni by secondary school in Switzerland) or similar is preferable to any of those. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2012 (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:NFPA-H=0

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: I found these categories in the list of uncategorised categories, with no explanation as to what they were about. After a little burrowing I discovered that they apparently relate to fire-hazard ratings of the National Fire Protection Association. They have are populated with chemical substances through a tweak to {{NFPA-chembox}} which was added in these edits by the creator of the categories, who is a new editor.
I was unsure of how to categorise these categories, so I added them all to Category:Safety codes. I'm not sure whether that was the best possible parent, but will notify WikiProject Chemistry and hopefully someone can advise on how to organise them if kept. However, the assignment of a particular chemical to a fire hazard code by one national safety association seems to me to a weak example of a defining characteristic, so I have nominated them for discussion here and look forward to expert input. I will personally remain neutral in the discussion for now, because I don't yet know enough about the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Chemistry has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 18 February 2012 (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:Gentrification of Atlanta, Georgia

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 & delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gentrification of Atlanta, Georgia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: 'Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. The concept of gentrification is definitely notable, but it is a rather subjective idea, and I find it very hard to see any way of setting objective criteria for inclusion in this category. The term can be used in a pejorative way, so it raises WP:NPOV issues.
Note also that there is no Category:Gentrification. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 18 February 2012 (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:King's Academy

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for King's Academy, a new, high-profile heavily-funded school in Jordan. The Category:King's Academy contains only the eponymous article and the "faculty" subcat. None of the people in Category:King's Academy faculty‎ are staff of the school; they are all either trustees or members of the advisory board. In no case is their relationship with the school a defining characteristic of the individual categorised. (It's not a major item on the CV of King Abdullah II of Jordan).
(Note: I found this category in the orphanage) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both -- This is a boarding school, not a university. The faculty category ought properly to be called "King's academy board members". They are all rulers, politicians, or business people who are on the governing board. We might possibly rename it to Category:King's Academy people, which I think I have seen used in relation to people associated with universities who are not teaching staff. However, this is at most sondary education, and I do not think we need a category at all. There is nan adequate list in the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both I was going to say keep the top-level when I thought it was a university, but I don't find boarding schools inherently notable. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both As Peter noted above, the faculty category should be emptied since nobody currently in that category actually teaches at the school. We're left with an empty category (which is likely to remain empty since boarding school teachers are typically not notable) and a category whose sole content is an empty category. Pichpich (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Peterkingiron, RevelationDirect and Pichpich. Steam5 (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2012 (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:Video games based on American Broadcasting Company network shows

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Video games based on American Broadcasting Company network shows ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete (Follow-up to this debate. The following is a copy of my rationale in that first discussion) Not a meaningful categorization. The fact that a video game is based on a television show is important but there's nothing network specific about the nature of such games. If one is given a video game and asked to decide whether it's based on a Fox TV show or on an NBC TV show, I don't think it's possible do to much better than a coin flip so the network is not a defining characteristic. Pichpich (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2012 (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:Texas Tech Red Raiders

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Texas Tech Red Raiders to Category:Texas Tech Red Raiders and Lady Raiders
Propose renaming Category:Texas Tech Red Raiders athletes to Category:Texas Tech Red Raiders and Lady Raiders athletes
Nominator's rationale: Per all other gender-split categories of Category:College sports teams in the United States by team. In this nomination on gender-specific teams from two years ago, Texas Tech was given what I'd characterize as a specious exemption from this naming guideline. The women's basketball team still calls itself the Lady Raiders, so the main category should reflect that. See also Category:Texas Tech Red Raiders and Lady Raiders basketball.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2012 (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.

NASCAR race team categories

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Bill Davis Racing drivers
Propose deleting Category:Brad Keselowski Racing drivers
Propose deleting Category:Bud Moore Engineering drivers
Propose deleting Category:Chip Ganassi Racing drivers
Propose deleting Category:Dale Earnhardt, Inc. drivers
Propose deleting Category:DiGard Motorsports drivers
Propose deleting Category:Evernham Motorsports drivers
Propose deleting Category:Front Row Motorsports drivers
Propose deleting Category:Furniture Row Racing drivers
Propose deleting Category:Germain Racing drivers
Propose deleting Category:Hendrick Motorsports drivers
Propose deleting Category:Joe Gibbs Racing drivers
Propose deleting Category:JR Motorsports drivers
Propose deleting Category:Junior Johnson & Associates drivers
Propose deleting Category:K-Automotive Motorsports drivers
Propose deleting Category:Kevin Harvick Inc. drivers
Propose deleting Category:Kyle Busch Motorsports drivers
Propose deleting Category:Melling Racing drivers
Propose deleting Category:Michael Waltrip Racing drivers
Propose deleting Category:Morgan-McClure Motorsports drivers
Propose deleting Category:Penske Racing drivers
Propose deleting Category:Petty Enterprises drivers
Propose deleting Category:Phoenix Racing drivers
Propose deleting Category:Red Bull Racing Team drivers
Propose deleting Category:Richard Childress Racing drivers
Propose deleting Category:Richard Petty Motorsports drivers
Propose deleting Category:Roush Racing drivers
Propose deleting Category:Stewart-Haas Racing drivers
Propose deleting Category:Turner Motorsports drivers
Propose deleting Category:Wood Brothers Racing drivers
Propose deleting Category:Yates Racing drivers
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. While established in good faith, this category series is, unfortunatly, a severe overcategorization. The inclusion criteria is, it seems, 'any driver who started in even one single race for the team at any level of racing' - hardly defining, and it leads to some drivers' pages getting Thirty Cat Pileups in the category section as team after team, major (Penske) mid-level (Morgan-McClure) and minor (K-Automotive) get their categories added. This is information that should be included in list form on the team pages (for instance, Richard Childress Racing could have a table added listing "drivers who have compted for..." with "driver", "series" and "starts" columns) or in navboxes, but I don't believe this is an appropriate form of categorization. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I get where Bushranger is coming from, stock car racing is a team sport, and these players should be categorized by the racing teams they're on. I would certainly favor a more narrow definition of who gets into these categories, though. Maybe each could get a hatnote that suggests drivers only fit if they were on the team for a full season?--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I do not know about stockcar racing, but in other sports drivers switch from team to team every year or two. These are thus performace by performer categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Bushranger, this is overcategorization. Drivers switch teams rapidly but the key is that it is not a defining characteristic. It should be done with a table in the teams' articles, as Bushranger suggests. Royalbroil 02:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ultimately I feel that this is much closer to something along the lines of Category:Baseball players by team than a much more fickle performer by performance scheme. Baseball players too play for various teams and switch fairly often as they are traded, signed as free agents and moved from AA to AAA to the big leagues and back. It's true that this is the cause of significant category clutter for a few players but we've come to tolerate this mild annoyance in exchange for what I think is a pretty meaningful and valuable browsing tool for our readers. "Performer by performance" is intended to cover one-time performances: a specific movie, a specific role, a specific concert and so on. I think we all agree that categorizing sportspeople by their professional team avoids that pitfall although it's always possible to find some cases where a person's involvement with the team was extremely limited. We categorize John Doe as a Boston Red Sox player even if he only had one appearance as pinch-runner but we don't call into question the existence of Category:Boston Red Sox players because John Doe's case is too "performer by performance". Finally, not all NASCAR teams are equally prestigious and some were particularly dominant in this or that era. That can make the team categorization quite significant. Pichpich (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is comparing auto racing to stick-and-ball sports is a little apples-and-oranges. While some teams (like Penske) stick around for as long as the Yankees have (or seem to anyway), most teams come and go, appearing from nowhere and then vanishing to whence they came, very quickly - while the Montreal Expos are remembered, K-Automotive Motorsports won't be even 10 years from now. Playing even a single game in MLB for the Seattle Mariners makes one notable both as a major leaguer and a Mariner; racing a single race for Front Row Motorsports only makes one notable as a Sprint Cup driver. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a perfect comparison but it's much better than likening it to performer by performance. MLB teams have indeed been very stable but that's not true in all major sports. The World Hockey Association was notoriously unstable and many hockey buffs will be stumped if asked to recall the names of the 26 teams. Yet we keep all subcategories of Category:World Hockey Association players as part of a consistent scheme. I think most obituaries of former Penske Racing drivers will mention that team. That makes it a defining characteristic and I find i difficult to argue otherwise. K-Automotive Motorsports? Yeah, not so much. But I think you're suggesting deleting Category:Penske Racing drivers so that the not-so-meaningful Category:K-Automotive Motorsports drivers can be deleted as well. I suggest keeping Category:K-Automotive Motorsports drivers because deleting it would also result in deleting the very meaningful Category:Penske Racing drivers. Pichpich (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm saying that they really all should be deleted, not just making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. While driving for Penske can be defining, driving a single race for the team is likely not. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to a "delete some, keep others" result; if these are kept, though, I'd like to suggest that they (a) should be generally limited to major teams, and (b) should be hatnoted with an explanation to only include drivers who competed in a significant portion of a season (as opposed to a full season, per my comments above) or who are otherwise intristincally linked with the team in question.- The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that your argument is OTHERSTUFF but I don't think it's fair to decide the fate of these categories by using the least significant among them (K-Automotive Motorsports) and the least significant way in which a driver might belong to a category (a single race). Most of the above are significant teams and the majority of drivers were part of their team for multiple races and in many cases multiple seasons. I'd be ok with your suggestion (b) though it might be tricky to define "significant portion". Suggestion (a) however would force us to draw an even more arbitrary line. Pichpich (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that as things stand now anybody who drove for any team in any series in any number of races seems to be eligible for this sort of category, which is exactly what WP:OC defines. We don't need Category:Black Jack Racing drivers, for instance (ran one race in 2009 with Dexter Bean, had David Starr and Kelly Bires DNQ in one attempt each). There has to be a line somewhere or else that is exactly what this will come to at some point, therefore the category tree either has to have a "team significance cutoff" or it has to be decided by the "least significant team and least siginificant way a driver can belong" lest it become a Category Tree Of Unusual Size. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 20 February 2012 (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:Parks in Greater Moncton

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Parks in Greater Moncton to Category:Parks in New Brunswick
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This category is not enough articles per WP:SMALLCAT and it's growth. It's the only park in the Greater Moncton region. Steam5 (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting merge, my friendly BHG. I found some Greater Moncton categories that are not in articles. I put the template for speedy deletion. If it doesn't work. I will put the Greater Moncton categories that has no articles for a full discussion no matter what happens. ;-) Steam5 (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My fault BHG, I'll leave the specific Greater Moncton categories, at least for now until de-population is underway. Also, BHG User:Shawn in Montreal is oppose merging this category. And BHG, could you talk to User:Shawn in Montreal why did you oppse merging? Just ask him why, if you please. Thanks. ;-) Steam5 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2012 (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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_18