From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 9 November 11 >

November 10

Category:Lists of books by genre or type

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: Split. Dana boomer ( talk) 18:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Lists of books by genre or type to Category:Lists of books by type
Nominator's rationale: Listing books by genre is already covered by Lists of books by topic. I propose changing the name of Lists of books by genre or type to make the category simpler and putting some lists in the other category where appropriate. — K. the Surveyor (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
It does seem reasonable to make a new page called Category:List of books by genre. However I now realize that things would still be easier if we renamed this combined category Category:List of books by type and only moved the others. Is there some way to move the members between categories without manually visiting each page? — K. the Surveyor (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I am not aware of a method, but changing "books by type" to "books by genre" would not take long for each relevant entry. It may be easier to create the new category first and populate it before the name change. As long as Category:List of books by genre is created, I would support the suggested name change. Cjc13 ( talk) 12:02, 14 November 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:Fictional characters debuts

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 Category:Fictional characters debuts to Category:Fictional characters by year of introduction and Category:Comics characters debuts to Category:Comics characters by year of introduction; rename all others to "Category:(Fictional or Comics) characters introduced in (year)." There's no consensus either way, and the precedent is old enough that it doesn't hold in the face of this disagreement. The format of the category names is obviously confusing to some, so reverting to the "introduced in" format seems the right way to go. On the "how do we determine the year of introduction?" question, my answer is "do the best you can." In most cases, first publication or first appearance on screen should do fine.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 03:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Fictional characters debuts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_17#Category:Fictional_characters_by_year. Magioladitis ( talk) 00:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
{Year} fictional characters debuts
Comics characters debuts
  • Comment Can someone please co-nominate all subcategories? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 00:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I can help with this. Do you also want to include Category:Comics characters debuts and its subcategories? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • By the way, do these categories not fall under CSD G4? If they do, then a nomination would be needed only for the comics characters categories. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Strictly speaking the fall under G4, I didn't want to do it because the name is slightly different, at least two editors massively added this category the last two days. Moreover, we have to clear something: Do we add "xxxx introductions" categories to fictional characters? My opinion, based also in the discussion of 2007, is that we shouldn't. Feel free to send them to G4 them. I think you are more experienced with categories than I am. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
        • I contacted Kbdank71, who closed the 2007 discussion, for confirmation that G4 applies to the fictional characters debuts categories. After looking more closely, I do not think that G4 applies to the comics categories, since they are quite a bit older and were not directly covered by the 2007 discussion. Anyway, I've prepared a list of pages for tagging and can begin as soon as the G4 question is settled. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
          • Well, as I said to a similar request currently on my talk page, three years is probably long enough to determine if consensus still exists to keep these deleted. That, however, is my opinion; G4 doesn't come with a time limit. Policy simply states "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion." That would appear to be the case here. True, the titles don't exactly match, but the intent is clear: These categories contain articles where a character first appeared in a certain year. And from reading through the discussion I closed, and the " trial balloon" discussion from Oct 1, 2007, it appears to me that the arguments made are still sound, and that G4 would apply. -- Kbdank71 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
            • I've begun tagging... I'm relisting to today's CfD log page so that the discussion will remain open a full 7 days. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - I don't see any valid reason for deleting this except that it was deleted under other name three years ago. Instead of adding characters under "1940 introductions" or "1978 introductions" (in which I would expect to find other stuff like new invents, films, vehicles, etc.) It is also a parent category of the comics categories. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 09:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Let me repeat some arguments then: How do we define the debut of a fictional character and where? Mickey Mouse appears in films, TV series, comic books, etc. When is its debut? Dracula appears in many media as well and not all of it appearances concern the same character but variations. When is its debut? The same goes for hundreds of characters that appear in more than one media, or reappear in spin-offs after years with slightly different plots. In my opinion we shouldn't add them in xxx introductions neither for the same reasons. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Another good example is William Adama which appears in the BattleStar Gaaalactica re-imagined series. The original character appears in the 1978 version, while "young Adama" appears in the 2009 Caprica TV series. The latter is partially covered in the first page and doen's have a page itself. I didn't research on comic books etc. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 14:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
      • It is not difficult to define the debut. The debut is the first appearance. J Greb has done a good example citing the case of Mickey Mouse: he first appeared in 1928 with the Plane Crazy short, and later made appearances in comics, TV, theme parks, etc. Harry Potter, who appears in both novels and films, debuted in 1997 with the Philosopher's Stone book. Winnie the Pooh, who has a whole franchise of his own (including films, toy lines, TV shorts, etc.), debuted in 1926 in a book by A. A. Milne. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 03:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete ( CSD G4) the {Year} 1894 fictional characters debuts categories per the 2007 discussions and delete the related comics categories. Except for the name of the categories, nothing has changed from when this issue was last discussed. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 20:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a structure of categorization that groups well by a clear defining characteristic. Alansohn ( talk) 21:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • But that does not address the issues raised in the original discussion. Are these categories in any way different from the original Fictional characters by year categories, such that the problems of the original categories do not apply? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The year a character is first intorduced is something that is important with in the description of the character and it is some thying that can generally be pointed toin secondary sources. There is some additional fine tuneing that may need to be applied though. I see the Adama being brough up as an example, frankly, a little common sens can come into play here. Characters are "introduced" only once, it doesn't matter if later stories feature a "young" version or an "older" one, they aren't introductions. If we have one article on Adama, treating the 1978 and 2003 presentation as a single topic, then the character was introduced in 1978. If we have individual articles (the current case) then we are treating them as seperate characters that were introduced in different places and times. That becomes a content issue though dealing with the justifiability of the two articles, not a categorization one. - J Greb ( talk) 01:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Apart from the obvious, to me at least, WP:OVERCAT, I tried to explain, with this example, that the term "introductions" depends on what and where. Mickey Mouse was introduced in many media different years. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 02:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I think you missed something, though Mickey is a fair example to repeat it with. As a character, Mickey was introduced in 1928. That's as far as it goes. If there were articles on various iterations of Mickey - comic book, comic strip, television, novel, whatever - eacho of those articles would have a different year. Would I argue for splitting Mickey Mouse up that way? No, because it would be unneeded content forks. In the same vein tagging Mickey Mouse with a "fictional characters debuts" category for each adptation should result in the additional cats being removed as incorrect. Similar cases for the likes of James Bond (1953), Shelock Holmes (1887), or Superman (1938). Unless there is an article on a version of the character from an adpataion in a different media - like Clark Kent (Smallville) - the year the adaptation occured wouldn't, and shouldn't be categorized.
As I said, a lot of this comes down to article content issues, not an inherantly "bad category structure". The devil in the details for the categories though hinges on 1) the intent of the categories being clearly stated on the category page, not that unique a situation; and 2) articles and the categories being watched to remove improper use of the categories, a relatively common situation with mot categories. - J Greb ( talk) 03:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all (and keep). I was going to nominate them for renaming myself. Suggest format "Fictional characters by year of introduction", "Fictional characters introduced in XXXX", "Fictional characters in comics by year of introduction" and "Fictional characters in comics introduced in XXXX". I guess the word "Fictional" might not be needed. As for the original discussion, the word "introduced" seems blatently obvious to me. It's like User:Lord Opeth said, "It is not difficult to define the debut. The debut is the first appearance." Anemone Projectors 15:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • "Fictional" tends to be needed in some way, "Characters in works of fiction by year of introduction" works as a top level. When it starts getting broken down by media, that becomes awkward - "Are we talking about characters that are not real people or comics that don't exist?" - J Greb ( talk) 16:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply

The proposition of the nominator really should be prominently visible in the nomination so that a brief glance would give an idea about what the nomination is about. __ meco ( talk) 19:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I suggest re-deletion since the main arguments of last time still apply. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 00:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Then, Keep. I think a proper proposal should have been presented at the time of nomination instead of demanding of users that they visit the previous CfD to inform themselves of the arguments. Now I clearly see this category structure as an appropriate diffusion of the Introductions by Year hierarchy based on the rationale that whenever a subordinate hierarchy within a large category (structure) stands out, that subordinate hierarchy should become a subordinate structure. As for the argument that this is a useless category structure which nobody will be interested in consulting, I find that completely invalid. Surely, many people who are interested in comics or other fictional characters will find it of interest to see what other characters emerged in the same year as the character they were initially reading about—as opposed to reading the much more generic Introductions by Year category. __ meco ( talk) 09:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per J Greb, who has perfectly explained how to understand "introduction" even with characters from serial and franchise fiction. These categories are completely workable and no less defining for a character than the year of release for a film or year of publication for a book; it helps anchor these characters to a historical structure. postdlf ( talk) 04:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The category adds a sense of history to the individual character articles. The Real One Returns ( talk) 08:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete...seems like pointless overcategorization, in addition to being a re-naming of a set of categories that has already been deleted. Susan118 talk 19:02, 16 November 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:Gay musicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:LGBT musicians. There are other categories such as Category:Gay writers which it would make sense to merge with their LGBT counterparts.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Gay musicians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:CAT/GRS#Sexuality states "Categories should not be based on sexuality unless the sexuality has a specific relation to the topic". I don't see how one's sexuality has any relation to their music. I came across this when looking at an unreferenced BLP and found it to be a potential problem for someone to be in this category with no sources to back it up (obviously I removed the category), I then intended to go through the category to look for other possible BLP violations but after thinking it through I'm not sure if this category should exist. — J04n( talk page) 19:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for pointing this out. It looks like point 3a "A person may be categorized and identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) if they themselves identify as such, regardless of relationships or apparent gender" is the relevant section. It also seems to me that this does not justify this category since is at odds with "Categories should not be based on sexuality unless the sexuality has a specific relation to the topic". I can see the rational for Category:Queercore musicians, since their sexuality is directly related to the type of music that they play but to put Freddie Mercury and Robert Plant into different categories because of their orientation seems odd to me because what makes them both notable is that they are rock vocalists. So, unless I am totally missing the boat on this I would also nominate Category:LGBT musicians and all of its subcategories except Category:Queercore musicians. I should have thought the nomination out a bit better and put them all up at once, procedurally speaking is it too late to do so? — J04n( talk page) 01:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment I don't find it too meaningful to discuss a subordinate entity when the rationale of the nomination clearly applies to the fuller category structure. I'd much rather see an umbrella nomination of all LGBT people categories that aren't related to their being LGBT. __ meco ( talk) 09:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC) reply

There is a cultural context for LGBT musicians as a topic, including but not limited to a significant number of musicians who market themselves primarily or exclusively to LGBT audiences, the role of openly gay musicians such as Freddie Mercury, Elton John, Ricky Martin, Rufus Wainwright and Boy George in helping to change mainstream attitudes toward homosexuality, and on and so forth. There have been countless books and academic works and magazine and newspaper articles and radio/TV programs devoted to the topic of homosexuality in music, which is exactly what the criterion of "unless the sexuality has a specific relation to the topic" means: there is properly sourced and documented evidence to support viewing this intersection of traits as a notable topic. And for the record, Freddie Mercury and Robert Plant are both sitting in Category:English rock singers, for instance, so the existence of this category isn't isolating anyone from other relevant categories. Keep. Bearcat ( talk) 00:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Merge with Category:LGBT musicians. There is no need to bring intersex persons into this, because that is a rare physical condition, not one of mental choice or the result of emotional influences. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:37, 14 November 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:Modern civilizations

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 21:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Modern civilizations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No possible criteria for inclusion in the category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- This category contains a series of global cultural regions. It is either misnamed or mis-conceived - I am not sure which. Russia is categorised, but covering at least two adjacnet countries. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The category mixes articles about cultural regions (e.g., Muslim world), geographic regions (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africa), geopolitical regions ( Latin America) and even an independent state ( Russia). The concept of "modern civilizations" is not a novel one, but it is also one which has multiple competing classifications. It is not entirely clear which source is behind the particular classification employed by this category, but it is certainly either subjective or arbitrary. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 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:That Guy with the Glasses

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:That Guy with the Glasses ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Far too little content for a category. Only four articles, absolutely no chance of growing beyond that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 18:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: the category only includes the main article, a template and one list which is not exclusive of That Guy with the Glasses. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 03:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This is pretty much useless, and I echo what's been said above. — Half Price 16:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- An eponymous category, whose contents can be adequately linked by a navbox or template. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:44, 14 November 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.

Furman Paladins

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: Relist, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 1. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Furman Paladins and Lady Paladins to Category:Furman Paladins
Propose renaming Category:Furman Lady Paladins basketball coaches to Category:Furman Paladins women's basketball coaches
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Similar to the Ole Miss categories below, Furman no longer seems to use "Lady Paladins." Examples here and here.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 13:33, 10 November 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.

Lady Rebels

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: Relist, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 1. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss Rebels and Lady Rebels to Category:Ole Miss Rebels
Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss Rebels basketball to Category:Ole Miss Rebels men's basketball
Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss Rebels basketball players to Category:Ole Miss Rebels men's basketball players
Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss Rebels basketball coaches to Category:Ole Miss Rebels men's basketball coaches
Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss Lady Rebels basketball to Category:Ole Miss Rebels women's basketball
Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss Lady Rebels basketball players to Category:Ole Miss Rebels women's basketball players
Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss Lady Rebels basketball coaches to Category:Ole Miss Rebels women's basketball coaches
Propose renaming Category:Ole Miss basketball to Category:Ole Miss Rebels basketball
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I created most of these Ole Miss Rebels categories years ago, when the University of Mississippi men's teams were Rebels and the women's teams were Lady Rebels. The school no longer seems to use the term "Lady Rebels" for its women's sports teams. Examples here, here, and here. Note the sequencing of the above nominations, as Category:Ole Miss Rebels basketball would need to lose its former purpose before gaining a new one.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 13:17, 10 November 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:Felids

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: No consensus. Dana boomer ( talk) 18:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Felids to Category:Felidae
Nominator's rationale: Main article is titled Felidae. Ucucha 22:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Weak oppose - If you look in Category:Carnivorans and Category:Mammals (this category's parentage), all of the categories are pleural, while the main articles are singular. The categories contain members of the group name. Using more common terms, all types of mammals are located in Category:Mammals, yet the main article is the singular Mammal. Almost all of the mammal subcategories are pleural and follow this same scheme. -- Scott Alter ( talk) 02:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment - Felidae is already plural. This proposed move is from an English plural form to the equivalent Latin plural form. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 06:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support - where taxonomic categories are used, the correct Latin form should be used. Beeswaxcandle ( talk) 06:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - Though there are obviously exceptions (including some successful renames listed on this page). I look over the subcats (and subcats of subcats of subcats) of Category:Mammals, and the english plural seems to be predominant in usage. This really should be discussed among those knowledgable about such things, like at a Wikiproject. I would guess that there is an WP:MoS related to this somewhere... - jc37 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:04, 10 November 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.

Manitoba Bisons

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: Relist, see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 1. Dana boomer ( talk) 14:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:University of Manitoba Bisons players to Category:Manitoba Bisons ice hockey players
Propose renaming Category:Manitoba Bisons players to Category:Manitoba Bisons athletes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The first category is comprised entirely of hockey players. The second category is just for subcategories such as Category:Manitoba Bisons ice hockey players. The Canadian equivalent of Category:College athletes in the United States by team seems to be the underpopulated Category:Interuniversity athletes in Canada, which gives no guidance whether a Canadian category should follow the U.S. principle that "athlete" means "active sportsperson" or the more global principle that "athlete" means "track and field participant." This nomination assumes the former, but I'm open to being educated otherwise.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 12:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I support merging the University of Manitoba Bisons players to Manitoba Bisons ice hockey players, as that naturally is where they should go. However , I don't support the second renaming. All Universities in Canada have "Category:School X players" as the overarching category. So to keep with the format, I would keep the name as players unless you are proposing to rename all 40 someodd CIS members as "Category:School X athletes" of which I do not support. At least in Canada you hear of hockey players, football players etc. but you never hear them called hockey athletes or football athletes. The only time you hear athletes mentioned is when it is track and field or cross-country. Shootmaster 44 ( talk) 00:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the knowledge. All the sport-specific categories in all countries are "School X players," but in the US categories, we've used "School athletes" to define the broader class of sports players.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 01:48, 11 November 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:British pediatricians

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 07:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:British pediatricians to Category:British paediatricians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. UK subject; UK spelling should be used. Grutness... wha? 09:12, 10 November 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:Indian pediatricians

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 07:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Indian pediatricians to Category:Indian paediatricians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As above; India uses UK spelling. Grutness... wha? 09:12, 10 November 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:Twin Rivers Basin

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 07:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Twin Rivers Basin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Yet another not notable USGS unit. Only content is two redirects. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. We seem to have a category creator here who confuses the purpose of articles with the purpose of categories. This is borderline notable for an article; certainly it should not be a category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 11 November 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:Oregon closed basin

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 07:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Oregon closed basin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Great Salt Lake regions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Tulare-Buena Vista region ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Northern Mojave-Mono Lake region ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Southern Mojave-Salton region ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Humboldt River Basin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sevier Basin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Carson River Basin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Lower Colorado-Lake Mead ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mono-Owens region ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Truckee basin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Salton Watershed ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or convert to an article. This looks like yet another USGS subdivision that is not defining but might have a life as an article. I'm not convinced that an article would meet muster at AfD, so deletion may be the end result. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. We seem to have a category creator here who confuses the purpose of articles with the purpose of categories. This is borderline notable for an article; certainly it should not be a category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – we seem to have a category creator here who is completely confused. This is part article, part list, part 'what links here' (but no-part-category). Occuli ( talk) 11:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete About Category:Oregon closed basin: claims to be about drainage basins (specifically USGS HUC 1712 "Oregon closed basin"), yet includes things unrelated to drainage basins, like cities, caves, ...even Greaser Petroglyph Site. Also arguably original research or synthesis in saying Since it is adjacent endorheic watershed, the Great Basin's Goose Lake (Oregon-California) of USGS subregion 1802 is included in this category. I think this is supposed to mean that since Goose Lake is also "closed" it should be included in USGS HUC 1712, even though it isn't. Goose Lake is in HUC 1802 (Sacramento River), and is at best "semi-closed" (I just removed Goose Lake (Oregon-California) from the category before checking out the CfD entry here). In any case, for the Oregon closed basin category and all others based on USGS "HUC"s, there are nearly 200,000 USGS hydrologic units defined--it is hard to see why they are notable in and of themselves, especially when they do not strictly correspond to actual drainage basins. A list-type page covering the larger, higher-level USGS hydrologic units would make better sense. Even then, the most-recent, higher quality Watershed Boundary Dataset should be used instead of the USGS huc name page, or the EPA "Surf Your Watershed" pages—while useful, these pages are effectively obsolete as of 2009 or so. Pfly ( talk) 07:49, 17 November 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:Great Basin counties

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 07:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Great Basin counties ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Great Basin counties in California ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We tend to avoid categorizing political divisions by geographic features. I don't see how being in the Great Basin is defining for these counties. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:16, 10 November 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:Pleistocene lakes of the Great Basin

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 to Category:Lakes of the Great Basin, Category:Former lakes, and Category:Pleistocene.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 02:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Pleistocene lakes of the Great Basin to both Category:Lakes of the Great Basin and Category:Pleistocene
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge to Category:Lakes of the Great Basin and Category:Pleistocene small category with little growth prospects. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Remark shouldn't former lakes of the region be in a subcategory? Perhaps, recategorize entries to Pleistocene, and rename to Category:Former lakes of the Great Basin, and decategorize from Pleistocene? 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 07:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • If these are lakes from the Pleistocene, they should be categorized there. If someone believes that we should create a Pleistocene subcategory for lakes and populate it with these I have no objection. Is there a precedent for former lakes by landform? Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Clarify I meant the new category "former..." would be decategorized from Pleistocene, while the articles themselves would be categorized into Pleistocene. 76.66.203.138 ( talk) 06:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Support. merge to Category:Lakes of the Great Basin, with articles also restored with Category:Former lakes.--- Look2See1  t a l k → 18:30, 12 November 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:Southwestern Nevada volcanic field

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 07:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Southwestern Nevada volcanic field ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I was going to propose a merge to one or both parents, but the sole article is not about a volcano or a volcanic field. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. We seem to have a category creator here who confuses the purpose of articles with the purpose of categories. The topic is borderline notable for an article; certainly it should not be a category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 11 November 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:Central Nevada Desert Basins

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 07:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Central Nevada Desert Basins ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Main article deleted. This is another USGS unit that appears to lack notability. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. We seem to have a category creator here who confuses the purpose of articles with the purpose of categories. Since the article was deleted so too should the category be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 11 November 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:Kings Island attractions

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 18. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 00:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose merging Category:Kings Island attractions to Category:Kings Island
Nominator's rationale: Merge. In an attempt to standardise the categorisation of amusement parks, this category should be merged in with its parent category. Despite the category being empty, speedy deletion was declined. Themeparkgc   Talk  02:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I declined the speedy because the category was emptied by the csd nominator: [1]. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 02:51, 10 November 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:Delamar and Dry Lake Valleys

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. Jafeluv ( talk) 07:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Delamar and Dry Lake Valleys ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Tonopah Basin ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Honey-Eagle Watershed ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Death Valley-Lower Amargosa Watershed ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ivanpah-Pahrump Watershed ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Pahrump Valley ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Hamlin-Snake Watershed ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Las Vegas Wash Watershed ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another not notable USGS categorizing unit. Any included articles are not going to be notable for being in this unit. The name is also misleading since it is the name of a basin. Previous was for the first item. Similar comments would apply to additional included nominations. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As an effective aid to navigation based on a clear defining characteristic used in the real world. Alansohn ( talk) 21:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC) reply
    • And the real world references to this being a clear defining characteristic? Clearly not Google where most of the hits are discussing activities that occur in both valleys and not in a USGS named unit. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. We seem to have a category creator here who confuses the purpose of articles with the purpose of categories. These are borderline even as articles; completely inappropriate as categories. They are not a clear defining characteristic of articles included in them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Category:Tonopah Basin just consists of every article which mentions Tonopah Basin (and the mentions have been added to the articles by the category creator). This is a 'what links here' list, not a category. Occuli ( talk) 12:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per above arguments. Pfly ( talk) 02:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC) reply
If the nominator intentionally meant to include this Colorado River/Lake Mead Watershed, then you all should seriously ask yourself some questions, here. Mmcannis ( talk) 02:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The map at List of Great Basin watersheds shows the 3-tributary watersheds to Lake Mead: 1.– Meadow Valley Wash Watershed, the 2.– White River (Nevada) Watershed, and the 3.– Las Vegas Wash Watershed.-- Mmcannis ( talk) 03:12, 19 November 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_10&oldid=1141928199"