Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 10 April 12 >

April 11

[edit]

Category:Systems

[edit]
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. Judgment call, but the 'delete' arguments are backed by guidelines, whereas the 'keep' arguments are backed by WP:USEFUL. The category system is not intented to let people find "the different things called a system" but to group related articles. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Noone is disputing that the concept of a "system" doesn't deserve an article, or that likewise "system theory" isn't a valid idea. The question is whether articles need to be categorized as systems, considering the definition is extremely broad and quite a bit subjective. So many things could potentially qualify as "systems" that you almost have to ask what isn't a system. As far as the category being "well established", it doesn't appear it has actually been reviewed previously in cfd so apparently we just never got around to asking ourselves if the category is appropriate. Dugwiki 16:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[ar:تصنيف:أنظمة]] [[cs:Kategorie:Systémy]] [[es:Categoría:Sistemas]] [[eo:Kategorio:Sistemoj]] [[fa:رده:سامانه‌ها]] [[fr:Catégorie:Système]] [[io:Category:Sistemi]] [[id:Kategori:Sistem]] [[ia:Categoria:Systemas]] [[it:Categoria:Sistemi]] [[nl:Categorie:Systeem]] [[ja:Category:システム]] [[pt:Categoria:Sistemas]] [[ru:Категория:Системы]] [[sl:Kategorija:Sistemi]] [[vi:Thể loại:Hệ thống]] [[vls:Categorie:Systeem]] [[zh:Category:系统]]

This is like having 18 votes for this category — although I guess that doesn't count here. In any case, I would like to hear an argument for why the category "Systems" is important emough to exist in these 18 other languages but not in English. Can anyone provide one? Personally I can't thing of one and it only reinforces my view that it would be a serious mistake to delete this category. Rather, I think some effort is needed to diffuse the topics included into sub-categories so that at the "Systems" level only major types of system are included. I would be willing to put this effort in if the category survives. — Jonathan Bowen 02:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just because the other language versions of Wikipedia have dysfunctional categories does not mean that the English version of Wikipedia should copy it. For all we know, they may have just blindly copied the English Wikipedia category tree. (I have seen this before.) This argument is not persuasive. Dr. Submillimeter 14:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it is important to have a Category:Systems and a Category:Systems theory, one for just systems and one for the particulair formal and theoretical aspects around systems theory - Mdd 21:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the categorization of anything named a "system" or anything that can be called a system...
is also a very strong reason to keep this category. All the categories and articles in the Category:Systems have an ontological and formal connection. Like the Category:Scientific modeling this category gives (for those who are interessed) a complete cross view in Wikipedia, a view right-angled on all the specialised categories. - Mdd 20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , it is right that such category collects a broad heterogeneous subjects but it is still usefull for collecting everything that fit with the System concept --Chaos 20:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The things collected there have nothing in common except for the word "system", and this word is just as general as the word "collection" so it does not mean much. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — in collections the objects do not (necessarily) interact, whereas systems are characterized by the interaction of their components and this is what makes them particularly interesting whatever the domain. So I disagree with this argument. — Jonathan Bowen 00:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being broad by itself is not sufficient reason to have it deleted (cf. Category:Interdisciplinary fields). This category provides a unique perspective and a cohesive way to categorize a broad range of subjects that may share similarities and common approaches. --Zhenqinli 00:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Mdd, it is good for people to understand the different things that can be called "a system". --ivanlanin ♫ •• 03:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I believe this category is appropriate for Wikipedia. Like other categories near the Fundamental level (this is a "grandchild"), it encompasses a wide range of concepts, yet it fills a gap not covered by is sibling categories. I agree with those that object to broad categories that become a catch-all for a variety of articles, but suggest that the solution is to 1) clearly define the scope of the category 2) remove any articles or subcats that are already deeper in this category tree 3) disperse others to more specific categories and 4) remove articles that just don't fit. This should leave the category containing a much smaller set of high-level subcategories and a very few articles. I would be disappointed if this category is deleted. I am not formally "voting" in this CfD as I am here because of canvassing, which I know is discouraged, but I hope my input has some merit. ✤ JonHarder talk 14:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, some more comment and links to articles is always usefull of course, but good category, certainly compared to what en-wp categories generally exist ... --LimoWreck 23:08, 15 April 2007 (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:Racist video games

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Racist video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This nomination appears to have been accidentally deleted from cfd logs for April 10th, so I am relisting it for April 11th (someone inadvertantly erased it when adding a comment on another topic) This category appears to suffer from POV inclusion problems, similar to the deleted Category:Racists, and only currently contains two games. Therefore delete as it looks like an unnecessary and possibly overly subjective category. Dugwiki 21:43, 11 April 2007 (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.

Kernels

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pluralization. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:20, 9 April 2007 (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:University of Wisconsin presidents to Category:University of Wisconsin-Madison presidents

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for specificity. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:10, 5 April 2007 (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.

Internet categories

[edit]
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. I could see a point in renaming to "personalities" but please suggest that in a new CFD. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

capitalization Otto4711 22:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues: The category page states a rename to Category:American internet personalities and not as listed above. Secondly, Internet should remain first letter capped. RedWolf 15:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whereas I strongly agree that Internet should be capitalized. There's only one, and that's its proper name. But obviously, this is no longer a speedy candidate and should be sent to CfD. Xtifr tälk 13:00, 10 April 2007 (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:Young adult Authors to Category:Young adult authors

[edit]
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:Writers of young adult literature. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cap. —Cryptic 18:35, 2 April 2007 (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:Lists of dramedy television series episodes

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of dramedy television series episodes to Category:Lists of comedy-drama television series episodes
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Renaming in line with Category:Comedy-drama television series, Category:Comedy-drama, Category:Comedy-drama films, and the main article, Comedy-drama. On the talk page the category's creator stated this name had the benefit of being shorter and these category names are getting excessively long. It's 5 more key-strokes to retain consistency, I think people can handle the extra "effort". Pufnstuf 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment shouldn't that be comedic drama, or dramatic comedy? 132.205.44.134 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Comedy-drama" = 1,910,000 ghits; "comedic drama" = 62,800 ghits. That's a 97% majority for "comedy-drama". "Dramatic comedy" gets 116,000 ghits, so "comedy-drama" is by far the most common term. Allmovie even has an article devoted to Comedy-drama. Pufnstuf 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People museums

[edit]
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: the nomination was to delete it; it appears several 'keep' arguments object to that, but not to a rename. The present name is indeed awkward. The cat descriptor offers three inclusion criteria (biographical museums, collector museums, and museums named after people). The latter is arguably trivia, but the first two can have clearer names as suggested below. Analysis shows that yes, the category is for biographical museums (among others) so that's not inaccurate, and that per the confusion below the present name is neither excellent, nor easy to understand. Hence we end up with renaming to "biographical museums", and split out "collector's museums" as suggested where necessary. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People museums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unsure - I'm only nominating the parent at this point. On the one hand, this category and its subcats are a variety of eponymous category and sentiment seems to be running pretty strongly against them. OTOH, these aren't simply museums named after people but are instead museums about the people for whom they are named. Part of the category description indicates that it's for museums whose collections are based on those of a single person and those should be removed from the category and the description tightened, but I do see some utility in grouping such museums together as a child of Category:Museums by type. I do think the names need to be changed if kept but I'm not sure to what. Otto4711 19:25, 11 April 2007 (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.
[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Urban decay in popular culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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:Diana, Princess of Wales

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Diana, Princess of Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - eponymous category the contents of which (mostly relatives) can all be easily interlinked through the main article. Insufficient material to warrant a category. Otto4711 18:43, 11 April 2007 (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:Malcolm X

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Malcolm X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - as with many other eponymous categories, the articles within this one are interlinked through the main article and each other, making the category unnecessary as a navigational hub. Otto4711 18:30, 11 April 2007 (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:Charles Lindbergh

[edit]
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 the above and the below, same reasoning. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Charles Lindbergh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - another eponymous overcategorization. The articles in the category are either easily interlinked through the main article and each other or are only tangentially related (Earth Inductor Compass is included because Lindbergh used one on his flight; Hopewell, NJ because it was the town nearest the Lindbergh estate). Otto4711 18:19, 11 April 2007 (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:George S. Patton

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:George S. Patton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - overcategorization. The content of the category is easily and properly interlinked through the main article and each other so there is no need for the category as a navigational hub. Otto4711 18:11, 11 April 2007 (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:Donald Trump

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - Category:Trump buildings is slated to be deleted, per a separate nomination on this page, and should the Donald Trump article be split in the future, perhaps this could be recreated as "an exception" as noted, but that's a decision for the future (and I have a feeling that recreation will find its way to WP:CFD, as well. - jc37 12:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - unnecessary eponymous category holding two subcats which are a) categorized elsewhere and b) up for deletion themselves. Otto4711 18:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - you've said before that you think that eponymous categories should be somehow linked to the importance assigned to the biographical article. Can you explain in a little more detail why you're making this linkage? Because I really am not understanding, and whoever made this particular category didn't even bother to put Donald Trump in it. To answer your concern about the sub-categories, as noted, they are both up for deletion and, unless things change radically in the next couple of days, are going to be deleted. If they aren't, there are other categories in which they can be housed (for example, Category:American families for the family cat). Otto4711 02:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films by societal reaction

[edit]
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 films. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films by societal reaction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete because of the subjective nature of the categorisation. We have previously deleted a category for video games by societal reation but I'm not finding the discussion. Otto4711 16:51, 11 April 2007 (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.

Eponymous medical terms

[edit]
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. Arguments are basically that the grouped articles have little in common, vs the suggestion that the categories are WP:USEFUL. Yes, medicine has a lot of eponyms; no, that does not mean we need a category of issues related only through name. Misspelling issues are commonly dealt with through redirects, not cats. See also strong consensus to delete other eponymic cats below on this page. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Eponymous anatomical structures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Eponymous diseases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Eponymous fractures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Eponymous medical procedures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Eponymous medical signs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Eponymous medical tests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Eponymous medical terms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - another set of categories that collect articles based on their baing named after something, a form of overcategorization. Otto4711 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. and other eponymous category deletions. Doczilla 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - The various articles share little in common except their names. Dr. Submillimeter 22:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Medicine is replete with eponyms, despite a move in some places to have diseases renamed to descriptive terms. To access this content quickly, a category is much more useful. JFW | T@lk 07:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - eponyms are very important in medicine: (1) many conditions remain commonly known by the eponym (or there is no good alternative descriptive term) and (2) even if over the coiming years the descriptive names gain in usage, then the collection of eponyms will remain useful being of historical importance (just because some suggest switching the terms we use now, previous patient notes and journal papers will remain with the eponyms). David Ruben Talk 13:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I agree with David Ruben & JFW. Also eponyms are more likely to be misspelled and wikisearch may miss it, would be easier to find via category --Countincr ( T@lk ) 13:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some of these keep arguments make little sense. Categories are supposed to bring together articles that discuss similar topics. In these cases, the topics are only similar in that they are named after people. While the practice of naming various medical phenomena after people is notable, actually categorizing eponymously-named phenomena is not useful. For example, Hodgkin's lymphoma (a type of cancer) has little in common with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (a degenrerative neurological disorder) aside from the name. However, Hodgkin's lymphoma does have much more in common with other forms of cancer, so it should be listed in Category:Types of cancer. Does this make sense? As for the misspelling issue, redirects can be used to take care of that problem. Dr. Submillimeter 15:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it makes sense to categorize terms. If it is an eponym... one can look-up the guy (usually it's a guy) that it is named after. A lot of medical terminology comes from-- Latin, Greek. Many eponyms derive from Italians, Frenchmen and Greeks --which to an English speaker may sound similiar to a descriptive term-- it is nice to have them sorted. Nephron  T|C 18:24, 15 April 2007 (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:Lists of noted film director collaborations

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of noted film director collaborations to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, This category contains only 3 list articles. I believe it should be merged into another film or film-list category, but I'm not sure which one. kingboyk 16:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fluffed the nom up slightly. I'm proposing the articles be recategorised somewhere (cat merge) rather than a cat rename. --kingboyk 17:57, 11 April 2007 (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:Cult films

[edit]
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. Perhaps we could have a list of films that explains who considers them cult, and why. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cult films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - (I found this category while surfing Wikipedia. Someone else had posted Template:AfD in the category. I replaced the template with a CfD template.) As discussed elsewhere, the term "cult" as applied to entertainment suffers from POV problems. This category should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 16:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, shading to reluctant acquiescence to deletion - there is a significant body of material about cult films ("Midnight Movies" by J. Hoberman and Jonathan Rosenbaum for instance) so it's less subjective than an equivalent category for TV shows or other aspects of entertainment. The category is salvageable IHMO assuming that it relies on reliable sources for the "cult" status of the film and not some random editor's deciding that "small fan base" or "weird movie" equals "cult film." Otto4711 16:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (but clean up is necessary) - Cult Films are just like the equally controversial and equally unknown as the Honor Killing of your own daughter if she goes out with boys in Turkey. That being said, deleting this category would be a mistake. However I feel that this list needs to be cleaned up and proof that this movie is a cult film, as this list is controversial and a magnet to people's POV. A way we can do this is by categorizing the films by the point they are getting across, such as revolution in the movie Fritz the Cat or legalizing marijuana in the movie Grass. Also, for the literal cases that can not be classified this way, the cult that made the film.- Hamster2.0 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete recreation of vague, subjective category. Doczilla 16:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sadly. I love culty films, I made good money showing them when Iw as a student, but most of these are simply films that people assert are cult films. Borat, for example - is that a cult film? Does it have a small but obsessive following, with a popularity utterly baffling to non-fans, like, for example, Plan 9 From Outer Space? A list with reliable sources (preferably Ebert or smilar) for each entry is the way to go here. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is better defined and more seriously studied than other cult entertainment. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above. Lugnuts 18:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Cult" is much abused word. Oliver Han 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no inclusion criteria on the Category but the article Cult films defines a cult film as one with a "highly devoted but relatively small group of fans". How is the devotedness of fans measured, and how small a group of fans does it have to be? Relative to what? The Blues Brothers has a group of fans which exceeds that of many films which are clearly mainstream. How must they demonstrate their devotion? I really think this is an arbitrary categorisation; fans may put their favourite films in there to try to increase their prominence. Sam Blacketer 21:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Note that List of cult films was similarly deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films) as having too subjective an inclusion criteria, and as a general rule if something is too subjective to be a list it is even less suited to be a category (since categories have stricter requirements for Wikipedia inclusion than lists). Dugwiki 21:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reasion it was deleated last time was because... -Hamster2.0 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to being split off (from the main artical), I tagged this list section as being unreferenced and requested references from editors and from the Wiki Film project to verify that the list was something that was objective, verifiable and not original research.

The reasons for deletion are pretty clearly explained in the AFD discussion I linked above. It was unreferenced and overly subjective. The list was deleted both as a seperate article and also deleted from the article Cult Film (the rest of the article Cult Film that wasn't lists of films and actors was kept intact). Dugwiki 16:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i havent been a editer long however i do know that the categorey cult films has been very hepful to me. cult films is like slang but everyone knows what it means. i mean the big lebowski' cult film all over it it has a fan base who absolutly love it yet others would just say its an okay movie. therefore cult movies would be instrumental to determining what movies have an undieng fan base and which do not.

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:Somerset culture

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Somerset culture to Category:Culture in Somerset
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, To bring category inline with existing "Culture in (English County)" style. Rgds, - Trident13 15:01, 11 April 2007 (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.

Show business families

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rajesh Khanna family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Redgrave family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Rooney family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Sheen-Estevez family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Stiller family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Travolta family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Trump family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - as with many other "family" categories, these either have insufficient material to warrant categories and the various articles are all interlinked with each other, or the category system does not serve well to explain the family relationships between people with different family names. In each case, an article (such as the article for Redgrave family) can be created if the family relationships are sufficiently complex. Otto4711 14:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This sort of thing is much better handled as an article which can properly delineate and annotate and describe. I hate to imagine what would will happen to all the "occupation X family" categories when the genealogists get ahold of them and start adding in third cousins twice removed, and the great5-grand-daddy of the family. --lquilter 15:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The intersection of profession and familial relationship tends to be a rather trivial one, and that's what we ahve got here. Concur with Otto4711, if there is enough of a familial presence in showbiz, they can have an article, but that's about it. Arkyan • (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial, unnecessary intersection. These people's articles are already linked through content, and it's not like these are the only Rooneys, Stillers, and Redgraves in the world. Doczilla 16:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, however, no objection to them existing as articles. -- Prove It (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2007 (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:Women television writers

[edit]
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 'women screenwriters'. Consensus to merge seems obvious, there is disagreement about where to merge to. Also, I'd suggest we need a centralized discussion on gender-based cats. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Women television writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This category is unnecessary and it contains only two articles. Brandon97 13:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, regardless of whether you think that writers overall should be divided by gender, the fact remains that they are. And unless and until Category:Women writers is deleted we must abide by its description and thus divide writers by gender. And therefore, it follows, we must subdivide those women writers along some accepted scheme, such as by genre, to keep the category maintainable and consistent. Thus simply merging this category into Category:Television writers is not currently an acceptable option. Dugwiki 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe after this we need to revisit Category:Women writers. If the existence of that category is the root cause of the problem, then maybe we need to reach a clear consensus on that category. These sub cats were suppose to support why gender is important but so far that had not happened. Vegaswikian 19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: The last debate just ended. I, for one, would appreciate a little down time in order to, I don't know, populate some categories? And if past experience is any indication, we are not going to reach anything like a consensus. My fondest hope at the moment is that people find something else to talk about for awhile. As I said above, there really ought to be a policy about how soon people can renominate categories for discussion once they have been through the process (or twice, or three or four times, as is the case here, not counting sub-categories). — scribblingwoman 19:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further response Vegaswikian, there are many useful subcategories there for those of us who use them. Frankly, I find the work I've done to date categorizing ancient and medieval women writers, especially in the Chinese, Japanese and Tamil traditions, fascinating, and those subcategories quite interesting. For those with an interest in this subject. I also found reviewing the category of women screenwriters quite interesting, and was amazed at what a small proportion of total screenwriters fit in the category.A Musing 21:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Or if it must be merged, merge to Category:Women screenwriters. We have just had a series of extensive discussions about Category:Women writers, and one of the concerns expressed there was that sub-categorisation was needed; it seems perverse to immediately set about nominating the sub-categories for deletion. I am disappointed too that after such an extensive discussion, the nomination merely describes the category as "unnecessary", and makes no reference to the relevant guidelines at WP:CATGRS. Television writing is a long way from my areas of expertise, but having done some work on the women sub-categories of writers-by-nationality, I was fascinated to see how under-represented women were. I don't know whether that represents systemic bias in wikipedia or under-representation of women in that field, but either way the scarcity fits one of the criteria in WP:CATGRS. A quick look at Category:Television writers suggests that there is again a huge majority of male names, again suggesting that this category meets the criteria. I am particularly surprised and disappointed to see delete votes based on the fact that a category includes {{popcat}}: if a category is underpopulated, the answer is to populate it, and if it is not capable of being further populated, then it clearly meets the rarity criteria.
    It really is starting to get very tedious to find that nearly every gendered category is permanently under attack in this way, and we repeatedly have to the same discussion from first principles every time. WP:CATGRS is a guideline, and has the same status as other guidelines such as WP:CAT and WP:OCAT, which form the basis of discussions here. Why do we keep on having the go around in circles defending the principle of gendered categorisation of a small subset of human activities, when the guidelines are already in place? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete It is disappointing that BrownHairedGirl took it upon herself to create subcategories, when she knew that there was much demand for things to go the other way, ie towards total deletion. Haddiscoe 09:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Haddiscoe, as you know, there was no consensus to delete Category:Women writers, and the fact that some editors have taken it upon themselves to reject wikipedia guidelines is not a reason to refrain from creating useful sub-cats (though I didn't create this one). However, you have now voted for "strong delete"; do you have a reason for that vote other than fact that you reject WP:CATGRS and seem to think that a category should be deleted even when there is no consensus to delete? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category fulfills the guidelines at WP:CATGRS. It is a legitimate area of scholarship and television writers are often distinct from screenwriters (this word typically refers only to people who have written film scripts). Writing for a sitcom, for example, is the same as writing a film script. We should recognize these different genres, as does the academic scholarship on the topic. Also, perhaps the reason that the category is underpopulated at the moment is because every time a subcategory to "women writers" is created, the editors have to defend the category itself rather than take the time to populate it. Because we established the necessity for subcategories at the debate over "women writers," it is essential that editors stop immediately suggesting these subcategories for deletion unless they have a carefully reasoned argument. Awadewit 17:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the category only contains two articles is due to it being a recently added subcat to a parent category that many editors felt needed to be broken down into appropriate divisions.

Give editors more time; we’ve had less than two weeks to contemplate this category.

Screenwriters and television writers are not the same thing (screenwriters are writers of film), so I do not support the merge.

Response to Vegaswikian, the subcats aren’t really supposed to support why gender is important necessarily; rather, the existence of the categories and subcategories would demonstrate the very real fact that gender is an important aspect of the history of this genre of writing, as well as the production of literature and drama (tv, film, stage) in general. Read Women's_writing_in_English to find a thorough explication of the basis for categorizing writers according to gender. --Susiebowers 01:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Category:Women writers must not be subcategorised, as that will lead to some women being in many gendered categories, making the painfully obvious bias involved far, far worse. Abberley2 20:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Abberley2, what "bias" do you mean? This does not split any existing category; and WP:CATGRS says "Concerns about the POV status of a particular category must be weighed against the fact that not having such a category may also be a potentially unacceptable POV. Your personal feelings should not enter into the matter — if a category meets the criteria defined above, then it is permitted, and if the category does not meet the criteria, then it is not permitted. This is the only way in which the myriad points of view on the matter can realistically be reconciled into a relatively neutral position." --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 15 April 2007 (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.

Eponymous buildings

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Buildings and structures named after people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Airports named after people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Skyscrapers named after people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Trump buildings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - the categories capture buildings and structures with nothing in common beyond being named after a person, a form of overcategorization. Otto4711 13:46, 11 April 2007 (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.

Eponymous cities

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Eponymous cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Cities named for Lenin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Cities named for Stalin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - categories capture cities with nothing in common beyond being named for a person. I'm pretty sure we've deleted categories for cities named after U.S. Presidents before but I'm not finding the old discussion. Otto4711 13:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Eponymous cities, Listify or Delete Cities named for Lenin and Stalin. The nom.'s arguments work for Eponymous cities. The cities named for Lenin and Stalin, resp., do have something in common: being named after the same person. A list for either name would be more informative however, especially as most of these cities don't have that name anymore. A list could contain the old name, the eponymous name and the current name, together with dates of name-change. --rimshotstalk 14:27, 11 April 2007 (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.

Eponyms

[edit]
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. >Radiant< 10:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Eponymous foods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Eponymous minerals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Eponomous theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all - categories capture items with nothing in common beyond happening to be named after a person. This is overcategorization based on name. Otto4711 13:33, 11 April 2007 (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:Villages in Mie Prefecture

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Andrew c 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages in Mie Prefecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are no villages in Mie Prefecture. What was there, is merged to other towns or cities. Former villages are categorized in Category:Dissolved municipalities of Mie Prefecture. Neier 13:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Villages in Ishikawa Prefecture

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Andrew c 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages in Ishikawa Prefecture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There are no villages in Ishikawa Prefecture. What was there, is merged to other towns or cities. Former villages are categorized in Category:Dissolved municipalities of Ishikawa Prefecture. Neier 13:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:CLAMP images

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. While there is some discussion about the target name, there is no objections to fixing the all caps name. By allowing the rename we get to a better name and the adaptation issue can be addressed. Maybe the solution is as simple as creating a sub category. Vegaswikian 06:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CLAMP images to Category:Clamp manga images
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, There is a capitalization issue here, which has been resolved already on the main article and category. This rename was previously a speedy, under the ill-conceived name of "Clamp (manga artists) images", based on the parent cat. However, the suggestion made in the speedy nomination was a good one, and I'll recommend it here. Neier 13:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jews who converted to Christianity

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete WP:CSD G4 - recreation of previously deleted Category. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jews who converted to Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe this was deleted once before and that I nominated it. This time I see it has a version in another language Wikipedia so I'm less sure. Still this seems like it'd lead to a proliferation of "X to Y" conversion categories based on offshoot faiths like say; Category:Hindus who converted to Buddhism or Category:Muslims who converted to Baha'i.--T. Anthony 12:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Projects by type

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - Besides the fact that the example Category:Systems was deleted, Consensus seems to be that the word "projects" is too ambiguous. (See also: WP:OC#Unrelated subjects with shared names.) As an aside to whomever may be concerned, I am discounting the last comment for obvious reasons. - jc37 12:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Projects by type (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Astronomers by religion

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete - Listify historical examples, if such a list does not already exist. - jc37 13:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Astronomers by religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Christian astronomers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Muslim astronomers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Unitarian astronomers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Delete - The categorization of people by religion and occupation is generally inappropriate, as religion usually has little influence on people's careers. Specifically in astronomy, I know from personal experience as a professional astronomer that religion has little to do with people's careers in the field. Religion is not mentioned in any of my professional papers, nor is it mentioned in anyone else's professional astronomical publications. The professional astronomers whom I have known to participate in religious worship generally keep religion separate from their occupation. Generally, I cannot tell if my co-workers are religious unless they tell me. This category tree is highly inappropriate, and it should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I personally would object to being categorized as an astronomer of a specific religion. Dr. Submillimeter 09:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine, but many people would object to being categorized in all kinds of ways and traditionally that's not been a factor. There are likely a few names in Category:Gay writers or Category:Blind musicians who would not like being linked as such. In addition there are astronomers who worked in Islamic science or for the Vatican Observatory. Still whatever.--T. Anthony 09:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Actually, it just occurred to me that I do know a few employees of the Vatican Observatory, and that religion does have an influence on their careers but not on their research; I would not be able to distinguish between their research work and the research of other astronomers. However, these people should be classified as "Astronomers of the Vatican Observatory" rather than "Christian astronomers". The vast number of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, new age, and other astronomers that I know still are not influenced by religion in their work. Dr. Submillimeter 10:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
I'd prefer to use intersection categories only if there is some there is some true categorization cohesion. Not just lesbian left-handed authors from ottowa and the like. But categorization on en: is broken beyond repair already -- see the discussion on wikien-l.
In the specific case of religious subcategories, there was once the sensible compromise, to use the religion tags only on people known for their religious beliefs.
Pjacobi 09:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
If this was a list of astronomers who were also notable for their religious beliefs, then it might have some use, but otherwise it doesn't make much sense. You may as well have a list of left-handed or banjo-playing astronomers. Chrislintott 09:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I could specify time as well I might do that, but I don't know how time specific categories fare. Like Category:Muslim astronomers during the Caliphate might be a bit more plausible, but might also be too wordy.--T. Anthony 10:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've heard of archaeoastronomy right? There is a long history of astronomers you know.--T. Anthony 14:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of a specific religion that set-up podiatry/chiropody. There was palm-reading methods linked to some Indian and Japanese religions, but that's not the same. I do know that in pre-modern times observatories were often set up by the priests of Mayan, Christian, and Muslim religion. In Mayan and Christian religion calendars were important requiring this. Hence we have the Gregorian calendar. (Hint, it's not named for James Gregory (astronomer and mathematician)) In Islam star positions were useful for travelers wanting to know which direction was Mecca.--T. Anthony 04:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kompleks Sukan Negara

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamrtalk 16:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kompleks Sukan Negara to Category:National Sports Complex, Malaysia
Nominator's Rationale: Rename to change language from Malay to English. The English Wikipedia is more likely to attract English readers than Malay ones. Two hundred percent 06:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Lasallian Schools Press Conference

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Andrew c 04:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lasallian Schools Press Conference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Lasallian Students Press Conference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Narrow inclusion criteria. I'd recommend upmerging to Category:Lasallian student publications, but the sole article is this category is already in that one as well. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 05:47Z

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

Category:People diagnosed with clinical depression

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Andrew c 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People diagnosed with clinical depression (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as non-defining. When professionals refer to clinical depression as "the common cold of mental illness" because it's the most frequently diagnosed specific mental illness, then it's too common to be a defining feature for most people. Doczilla 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People with glioblastoma multiforme

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamrtalk 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with glioblastoma multiforme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete single-member category of limited usefulness. Doczilla 05:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm ok with merging the included article into another appropriate category. But note that if the category is simply deleted it leaves the included article orphaned with no category. So if it's deleted you'll need to use another broader disease related category to replace it. Dugwiki 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. The article is already a member of several other categories. You're right about the need for a medical cat, though. I added the article to cancer deaths because this disorder is a form of cancer. Doczilla 16:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Doc, Category:Cancer deaths works for me. I'm ok with Deleting the category now. Dugwiki 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - People are not notable for having diseases but for their other actions. The one person in this category, however, is an advocate for cancer patients and should be categorized accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've indicated in other disease related categories, some people are in fact notable in part for their disease. The blanket statement that nobody is at all notable for having a disease is simply false. Dugwiki 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Someone could have a disease and just stay out of the public eye. That person would not be notable and would not appear in Wikipedia. People with diseases who are known for having the diseases are either notable because they became advocates for the diseases' victims (as is the case for the person in this category) or because they were notable for other activities beforehand. (Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this?) Dr. Submillimeter 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply The flaw in that argument, though, is that it assumes that people can only be notable for one thing. In fact, though, it is quite possible for people to be notable for multiple aspects of their biography. A person can simultaneously be noted for their career AND for their advocacy of a cause AND for their personal hardships including disease, death, scandal and other items which catch national media attention. So that is the fundamental point, I think, where you and I differ in our categorization philosophies. You would argue, for example, that Christopher Reeve is notable mainly as an actor or possibly as an actor advocate, whereas I would argue that he is notable for three main items - his acting career, his advocacy and his personal hardship due to paralysis. Therefore, in my opinion, it is appropriate to categorize him under all three general types of category tags. Dugwiki 16:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Haddiscoe 09:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there is some evidence that this is a defining characteristic. Some people are notable for having disesases, but unlike disability I'm not sure that the categorisation system is a useful way of identifying them. --11:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and per discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 6#Category:People with diabetes --After Midnight 0001 14:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cancelled Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamrtalk 16:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cancelled Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis games to Category:Cancelled Sega Mega Drive games
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, after precedent set by CFR for parent, which was like the current name of the category without the Cancelled. Consistency and conventions possibly the only need for such, as the key article is titled Mega Drive as well. TRKtv (daaaaah!) 03:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Real-time tactical computer games

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamrtalk 16:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Real-time tactical computer games to Category:Real-time tactics video games
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I think the old CVG (computer and video game) project is transitioning to VG (video game). I'm also trying to make it look more like Category:Turn-based tactics video games. The main article also uses the word 'tactics' instead of 'tactical'.SharkD 02:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rename --SkyWalker 08:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tactical role-playing games

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamrtalk 16:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tactical role-playing games to Category:Tactical role-playing video games
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The category is for video games only. SharkD 02:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with this change Ominae 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Behaviour modification

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 07:15Z

Category:Behaviour modification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Subjective inclusion criteria; arguably duplicates Category:Alternative education and maybe even Category:Education. Doesn't education ultimately seek to "modify behaviour"? —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 01:38Z

Per the creator's comment on Category talk:Behaviour modification I believe it is a duplicate of Category:Punishment or one of its sub-categories. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 05:54Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Corporate ethics

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Andrew c 04:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Corporate ethics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Vague inclusion criteria. We already have a category for Corporate crime which has more definite inclusion criteria (and which this one used to be categorised under. [1]) —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-11 01:26Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_11&oldid=1138387508"