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. --Xdamrtalk 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category and OR. Are either of these really parodies? Are there more of this sort to even warrant a category? Adolesecent Radioactive may be notable, but I prodded C-BCC and redirected Pre Teen 'roos. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Relevant precedents for the deletion of superhero "pastiches" are
here and
here, though parodies are narrower than pastiches, and TMNT cultural references are likely to be less pervasive and easier to identify than Superman references.
Postdlf (
talk) 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete as a very small category with little perspective, and per first argument of nominator (overly small intersection, which is connected to my argument) as well.
Debresser (
talk) 23:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
As there are so few pages in the category, it would make more sense to simply list them on the
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles page itself. If at some future time there are a great many more parodies that have their own pages, the argument can be made for the category to be brought back again.
Wrightaway (
talk) 16:20, 13 July 2009 (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.
WikiProjects using XXX-Class in their grading scheme
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete all. --Xdamrtalk 00:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. These categories are superfluous and don't seem to be used. To see which WikiProjects are using Future-Class, for example, you can just look in
Category:Future-Class articles. Furthermore, some of the names of these classes are not widely used (e.g. Dab instead of Disambig, Cat instead of Category). — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 17:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment: These categories were originally created to track the usage of non-standard assessment classes where changes are to be made to the grading template (and to, if needed, be able to contact said wikiprojects). This is extremely difficult to do, as proposed above, via Category:Future-Class articles (for instance) as they do not necessarily match/are not necessarily in use. There may be a more elegant solution, however.
G.A.Stalk 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I did some research: These categories were created following
this discussion where the assessment grading scheme required updating, but it was unsure how many Wikiprojects would be affected. I also
found this guide with regards to monitoring parameter usage. Can the template be updated accordingly? This functionality is useful, even if it only categorises a few pages.
G.A.Stalk 06:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Looking at that conversation, it seems that these categories were only a temporary measure to find out which projects were using particular parameters of the
Template:grading scheme so that the template could be updated without upsetting people. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 07:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Exactly. I'd say the categories may be safely deleted if the alternative method is utilised.
G.A.Stalk 07:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nominator, that is, the low importance of this type of categorising, as testified to by the fact that not used extensively.
Debresser (
talk) 23:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I created those categories for the purpose Martin describes above. They've served their purpose, and if they are not useful now, then I'd say delete.
Titoxd(
?!? -
cool stuff) 04:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Note to closing admin: With
this edit, I deopulated these categories. If this discussion somehow ends with "keep", this will need reverting. Otherwise, the categories should be fairly empty now. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 22:32, 17 July 2009 (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:African American Secretaries of State
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. --Xdamrtalk 00:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete, overly narrow intersection of race/ethnicity and political office. To date, there have been two (
Powell and
Rice), and though one hopes and expects there will be more, it's not useful to subdivide such a specific occupational category by race/ethnicity because: 1) if not included in the parent categories,
Category:United States Secretaries of State and
Category:African American politicians, it would segregate these articles by race within the Secretary of State category and force readers to navigate that position through this trait alone, and 2) if it is also included in the parent categories, it would be a redundant pairing and provide no added categorization benefit for the articles. Both Powell and Rice are already included in the parents so no merging is required, which also further supports that this is too specific to be useful as a category, where people would obviously miss the articles if they weren't included in those parents. An alternative might be to create
Category:African American members of the Cabinet of the United States, which is a more substantial grouping and not overly narrow, though a
featured list already exists.
Postdlf (
talk) 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Agree with nominator — note that
WP:CATGRS explicitly spells out that for exactly this reason, one should never create an EGRS subcategory for a category that isn't otherwise subdividable on other grounds as well. A category for all African American cabinet members would certainly be valid, but a category for African American holders of one specific cabinet position isn't useful — for exactly the same reason as an "African American governors of US states" would be valid, but an "African American governors of one specific state" wouldn't be. Repurpose as proposed and add the others; to me, this is a case where category-plus-list is probably more useful than just one or the other.
Bearcat (
talk) 21:54, 12 July 2009 (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.
Surfing locations by country/region
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. --Xdamrtalk 00:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I played a major role in (mis)naming these, I'm afraid. I believe "of" is a much more suitable preposition than "in" for these categories. Some of the big wave breaks categorized here can actually be a mile or two off the coast, therefore not "in" the land area at all. This rename also has the benefit of more closely matching the "Beaches of..." categories, which are master cats for these.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 15:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
While noting that the question I raise is outside the scope of this CFD to determine, is it proper to categorize a place by what some people have at some time done there? I'm not doubting that there are places known as surfing locations, but they are presumably known as locations for other activities as well, and that a location is used for surfing may not define the location for anyone besides surfers. Is there a broader structure for this kind of "Places by activities performed there" kind of categorization?
Postdlf (
talk) 22:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't know if this answers your question, but I have also made this a subcat of the Sports venues by location categories, which does, in a sense, group "locations" by sporting activities. People can and do partake in a range of activities at beaches, but surf breaks that are encyclopedically notable are a subset. I would argue argue that it's a similar situation to
Category:Ski areas and resorts by country, strange as I know that sounds.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 23:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
The sports venues categories are for stadiums, arenas, etc., which are facilities specifically constructed for human use. The same is true of ski areas and resorts, which are areas demarcated and altered for that purpose no less than a golf course. Categorizing something as broad as a settlement or a beach based on one use seems to me very different.
Postdlf (
talk) 23:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I knew that was a bad example, even as I was making it. Thing is, there are a number of articles in this category that aren't notable for any thing other than surfing: Mavericks, cited below;
Jaws (beach),
The Wedge (surfing),
Teahupo'o, etc. These wouldn't even be named were it not for surfing: they'd be some anonymous big wave. That said, most articles do fit into the broader category of beaches or reef breaks that would still merit articles independent of surfing. But I for one still believe a notable surf break is a defining characteristic of a beach, reef or even
standing wave, provided it can be backed up with reliable sources.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 04:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Indifferent This is not an important enough difference to start renaming.
Debresser (
talk) 22:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose changing to neutral - see below. If you're arguing that it's a ssimilar situation to the skiing categories, please note that they are all in the form
Category:Ski areas and resorts in Foo - not "of Foo". Similarly other sports venues are "in" not "of". Admittedly surfing is an unusual case, as these locations are natural, not man-made, but if you're looking for consistency we should use "in" here, too.
Grutness...wha? 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Point taken on the last point, but not on the point about beaches, which is for a different reason -actually the same reason that I opposed the move in the first place (natural features are "of", human-made features and human uses of natural features are "in"). I do agree that it sounds odd that somewhere offshore should be listed as being "in" a place, though, so I'm moving to neutral.
Grutness...wha?
Keep all If we want to be technical about it, every littoral country claims the ocean around it as
territorial waters for a minimum of 3 nautical miles, so I see no problem at all placing a surf break "in" one country or another. FWIW, I would have the Beaches category renamed instead. -
choster (
talk) 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Natural landforms are always "of" by Wikipedia naming conventions. Which is part of the concern in this nomination - do surfing breaks count as natural features or human uses of natural features (which use "in")?
Grutness...wha? 02:17, 18 July 2009 (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:Islands in the Shetland Islands
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:Rename. A very cumbersome title, and although "Shetland Islands" is not generally considered to be incorrect, "Shetland" is the name of the archipelago and Council area. See
Shetland and
Talk:Shetland#Name.
BenMacDui 12:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support. The current title is unnecessarily redundant.
Jafeluv (
talk) 08:02, 14 July 2009 (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.
Subcategories of Alternate versions of comics characters
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. Both are extremely limited subsets of what is an uncluttered, manageable category. Even looking at the other parents -
Category:Superman and
Category:Fantastic Four - there is no solid reason split these minimal sets off.
J Greb (
talk) 12:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Regarding the material in AV Superman... The single character articles were pulled out of the Superman parent article, where the IOM sub is also still housed. The articles can be merged up to both parent categories. And at best, a link place on
Category:Alternate versions of comics characters pointing to
Category:Alternate versions of comics characters should suffice, not the subbing that was done at the same time as the 2 nommed cats were made. -
J Greb (
talk) 14:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
OK - I see the new ones are very recent and can be deleted without loss.
Occuli (
talk) 15:10, 12 July 2009 (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:Bilderberg Attendees
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 per precedent and as a trivial categorisation. --Xdamrtalk 00:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedily agree "Capitalisation fixes" is #2 of the speedy criteria.
Debresser (
talk) 22:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - attending a Bilderberg conference is a trivial basis for categorization. A similar category was
deleted a few years back.
Otto4711 (
talk) 12:48, 13 July 2009 (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.