< November 3	November 5 >

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) 10:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Tokusatsu actors
• Nominator's rationale This is another category classifying actors by appearing in a very specific set of films. Generally actors who appeared in these films, will have also appeared in other films that do not fit this description. Actors rarely only appear in one genre.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete This sounds like performer-by-performance almost. I don't think we should split genres of film in this way - the one exception that seems to be made is for porn.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as with this recent CFD, actors are seldom if ever restricted by genre. Genre categories will inevitably lead to massive category clutter. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Would be better if they were split up into "X cast members" categories, as for example Renn Kiriyama and Takeru Satoh have been the lead roles in Kamen Rider Series programs while Hiroki Suzuki and Nao Nagasawa have been in Super Sentai programs.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per long-standing consensus actors are not categorized based on the films or TV series in which they appear. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete-- unless someone is going to tell us that actors in his genre do not appear in others, this is a performance category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. I note that there are subcategories that will also need to be renamed. These could be done speedily if someone nominates them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Swami Vivekananda to Category:Vivekananda

Nominator's rationale: Per Talk:Vivekananda#Requested_move_4. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 21:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swami is spiritual Titel. And is used always Swami Vivekananda in public.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That it is a spiritual title isn't as relevant as what term this person is widely-known by and previous Wikipedia practice with such people. Pope Benedict XVI is the page title for his page, but T. D. Jakes is the page title for Bishop T. D. Jakes (the latter is a redirect). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Move: As the main page dealing with this person was moved by consensus, the category should follow. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the article and category from Pope Benedict XVI is content the the titel and the name. But by other religions how are not so popular her are other rights ??? This show for me a part of injustice.--Richard Reinhardt (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename To match main article. If people have issues with the name, they should take that up at the article, where the consensus was to rename, and that is where the rename should be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:  Relisted again at 2013 NOV 12 CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Albums produced by Don Fury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Redlink producer —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The producer is the defining characteristic of the album, and therefore it's irrelevant whether the producer has an article or not. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

----

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Esham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - although small, the category is fine. Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 12:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response @Difficulty north: Eponymous categories are discouraged. How is this extraordinary? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This does not apply as this is about the artist. Most artists have their own categories e.g. Category:Kylie Minogue, Category:The Corrs, Category:Yoko Ono. This is no different. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 22:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Most artists do not have eponymous categories and this guideline applies just as much to recording artists as it does politicians or history professors. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - small eponymous category. Esham is more than adequate for linking the meager contents together. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)----[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename Category:Wrestling promoters to Category:Professional wrestling promoters. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Wrestling promoters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: For one, the category is redundant to Category:Professional wrestling executives. For another, the use of "wrestling" versus "professional wrestling" meant that it was placed in a separate category tree, even though it should be obvious that the subject matter pertains strictly to professional wrestling and not any other form of wrestling. Now, there is a distinct difference between a wrestling promoter and, say, a vice-president of the WWE. Considering that, I would alternately support renaming to Category:Professional wrestling promoters IF it could exist comfortably with the other category and not be subject to confusion or misinterpretation. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 00:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Since there is a List of professional wrestling promoters would it be easier to rename instead? Definitely agree that the status quo without "professional" is not good enough. Starship.paint (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Professional wrestling promoters makes sense. Not all executives are promoters, which is a specific and important function (so I oppose any merge), but omitting the word "professional" doesn't make the actual scope clear. oknazevad (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Professional wrestling promoters to more clearly describe the contents of the category, to better match the associated article List of professional wrestling promoters and to differentiate from executives. Alansohn (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this. McPhail (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. This is an appropriate parent category for several sub-categories of women that would otherwise not be within Category:Women. It appears that this category has already been legitimately pruned since the nomination. If there were policy grounds against this category, they were not specifically identified, and some sections that were cited e.g. WP:OC#OPINION have no bearing on it. – Fayenatic London 21:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Women by ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We don't need this high level cat to group together women by ethnicity. The Category:People by ethnicity category is largely sufficient without needing to regroup all of them here. Women as a group don't have a stronger connection with "ethnicity" than men do, so if this one is kept, we'd need to create a "Men by ethnicity" too, and then consider dividing all of the different "X ethnicity" categories into men too - the result would be a lot of work without much tangible benefit. We should keep the "women" categories focused; I don't think we need this container. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. People evidently have a reason to group Bahrani women, Hazara women, Jewish women etc. into categories, and this is just a container category for those categories where there is a reason to group women by ethnicity. It's useful to have an overview of which ones these are. I may reconsider my opinion if you also nominate all the subcategories and it turns out that they're unneeded. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This and its highly racists sub-cats, especially Category:Women of color. We do not cagegorize by race, we do not categorize people by gender except when there is a clear indication of an overlap of occupation or something like occupation and gender, and we certainly do not do "of color" in some sort of attempt to split the world into "white" and "of color" in a way that makes no sense on a world-wide scale.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Category:Women of color - that is a valid cat but not to classify people, rather as a topical category for articles specifically about 'women of color' and associated initiatives/organizations.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't empty the category while it's being discussed. __ E L A Q U E A T E 07:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've removed it a second time. Emptying the category while it's being discussed is not appropriate. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on your talk page, removal of a clearly inappropriate category is not the same as "emptying". In this case, you have yet to front any reason why this category should be included, you are just reverting blindly. Please explain why it belongs as a subcat - esp of a set-category that contains people, to add a topic category that contains no people? A see-also link at the top is a much better solution here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Category:Women of color currently contains individual women, whether it's intended to or not, it was included. If you think the Category:Women of color contains entries it shouldn't, take it up there. It's disputable whether the consensus is that Category:Women of color should never contain individual women, despite the disclaimer. Right now you are emptying a category that you have nominated for deletion and this is premature. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; there was some improper parenting of some of the subcats, which I've fixed; women of color now contains no women, and thus shoudl not be a subcat of this one, regardless of how this discussion turns out.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OC; WP:OC#CATGRS; WP:OC#OPINION; WP:EGRS; WP:NOTDIR. IZAK (talk 10:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion since putting women into subcats implies that men are the norm for "people," and women are anomalies. If both genders are put into subcats, that leaves intersex and transgender people, and Wikipedia has a policy of not "outing" people. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
• Keep per Eleassar. Although I'm not sure how useful these sort of categories are in general, as long as we are categorizing women by ethnicity (see the current subcats), this is a useful container category to connect them to higher level categories such as "Women" and "People by ethnicity". Kaldari (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eleassar. So long as the sub-categories exist, this container category serves an important navigational purpose by grouping them together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a strong defining characteristic and an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this important navigation tool. gidonb (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: upmerge manually to both parents. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Chefs of Washington, D.C. to Category:American chefs
• Propose merging Category:Chefs of New York‎ to Category:American chefs

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a follow on to this discussion. It was determined that categorizing by city is not appropriate since chefs tend to operate in multiple locations as their fame develops. The NY category is the only one by state and it has similar weaknesses. As necessary, the individual articles can be placed in a people from category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and manual merge - a cursory investigation of the contents reveals several articles for foreign-born chefs whose American citizenship status is not verified in their articles. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and manual double merge, as nominated and stated above but also to Category:People from Washington, D.C. and Category:People from New York where appropriate. – Fayenatic London 08:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care needs to be taken in upmerging to Category:People from New York since many of these may already be included in a subcategory of that one. So if they are already in the tree they should not be in the parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to American chefs. Only upmerge to anything else when both clearly justified and not in another sub-cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: reverse merge to Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the press. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the press to Category:Wikipedia as a media topic

Nominator's rationale: These two categories are redundant, given that "the press" and "the media" can be considered the same topic in regards to referencing Wikipedia; in this case, "media" should be the superior term to "press". In addition, these two categories are attached to two different but similar templates: ((Online source)) and ((Press)), which currently has a related template merge discussion happening for them as well. Steel1943 (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete both - being mentioned in a press article is not a defining characteristic of any subject. A list would preserve the information and allow for links to the stories in question. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I'd suggest merging them the other way, though, as media coverage of Wikipedia is different from Wikipedia being used as a reference/source for information, but I think the latter situation is what is referred to by both of these templates/categories. There are to many entries to turn them into a list, really - there's around 2000 in the two categories combined! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Multiple lists can be created, chronological by year or alphabetical being two possibilities. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, do not listify or delete as part of this discussion, as any discussion with this as an option should be a "combined" discussion of both the category and the template. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the press. I don't see a need, or a value, to listifying. This category should never be applied to article space, however, but only talk or wiki or other space. This is essentially an administrative category, and should be treated as such. It is not defining for the particular topic - e.g. the fact that Amanda Filipacchi's article was mentioned in the media is not defining of the subject Amanda Filipacchi, but it's ok to say the talk page is defined by that (the convenience of automatic category assignment per the templates outweighs any other issues). We have lists for encyclopedic topics; this proposed list by Jerry Pepsi, OTOH, would not be encyclopedic, and would have to live in wikispace. The maintenance value of automatically assigned cats via the template is the best way to easily and painlessly group these articles together. I reject all suggestions to listify.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Please merge the other way, "Category:Wikipedia as a media topic" is a terribly abstract way to describe these pages; I don't think I would immediately know what the criteria for inclusion would be based on that name. "Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the press" maybe isn't the most elegant name, but it is precise and intuitive. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator Comment: per Mike Peel and JohnnyMrNinja, I support doing the opposite merge. My primary concern is to get these two categories merged, so even though I stated in my opening statement otherwise, it does not really matter to me, as long as the categories get merged. Steel1943 (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both These are not categories about the subject of the article; these are meta-categories about the article itself that are best handled with lists. There is no way to establish when an article has been covered sufficiently in the press / media to merit being a topic. One article? 10? 100 news reports? Local? National? The inclusion criteria are impossible to establish and the topic is not one about the material covered in the article. Alansohn (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: these are administrative categories, applied to the talk pages of articles, not to the articles themselves - in the same way that Wikiproject membership categories are. As such, I don't think your reasoning to delete both makes sense - we regularly use such templates on talk pages to categorize for internal wiki-purposes.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know how the categories are used and I stand by my argument. Furthermore, there's no way to establish what makes an article "referenced by the press" or "a media topic". Does it have to be on the front page of every major metropolitan newspaper worldwide, or is it a press/media subject if it appears in the Podunk Pennysaver? Alansohn (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are placed automatically by the template, so it suffices to have a single article in the podunk pennysaver that refers directly to the wikipedia article in question. Presence in the category is not that hard to determine; if a RS spoke about the article, you can put the template up top. If you delete the categories but keep the templates, there will be no way to bring together all of the wiki articles that have press references, and I don't think you're !voting to delete the template. In any case, your argument about whether this category applies to the subject of the article is irrelevant, as it is applied to talk space where different rules apply.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The template discussion has completed, with a result of "merge". Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_11#Template:Online_source. We should merge to Category:Wikipedia pages referenced by the press.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Jerry Pepsi' and Alansohn's sound analysis. Cavarrone 15:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Categories are about the subject, not about the article. We categorize the article on Willard Smith based on the traits and characteristics of Willard Smith, not based on what has or has not been done to the article on Smith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

these are internal Wikipedia cats applied to the talk pages, not the articles - we have many cats on talk pages (eg wikiprojects) that would not be defining of the article itself.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2013 (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.