Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
< May 21 May 23 >

May 22

Category:Parishes on the Isle of Wight

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 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 debate was merge, as duplicate and for consistency with similarly-scoped category names. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parishes on the Isle of Wight to Category:Parishes of the Isle of Wight
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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Parishes in Lancashire

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 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 debate was merge, as duplicate and for consistency with similarly-scoped category names. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parishes in Lancashire to Category:Parishes of Lancashire
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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:RiffTrax movies

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.--Mike Selinker 07:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:RiffTrax movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Effectively a promotion for a website; nonencyclopedic. —tregoweth (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The list in the article is a list, so if the films should be listed together, they are even without the category. Not every aspect of everything requires a category, even when that aspect involves the MST3K people. Otto4711 17:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The lone reason that MST3K did not make episodes on block busters like Titantic, Star Trek, etc was there was no way they could either afford, or be allowed to have, the licensing rights for the films. Due to their MP3 format for their commentary, this is no longer an issue and they are free to riff on anything now. Blockbusters and grade B (e.g. Troll 2, Glitter, etc) are now prime candidates. Is RiffTrax movies notable enough to keep as a designation? I say yes. MST3K was a long running TV show that put out a little under 200 episodes. RiffTrax, while only being around a year has released over 30 episodes with more to come. The RiffTrax movies catagory is a growing list that will soon have a catalog to rival MST3K. It is as valid as a category as the MST3K movies. --Robertpreed 17:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Many people on the RiffTrax forum say that this isn't MST3K 2.0 but it does feature some of the same people. And sure they don't riff on b-movies all the time but during the MST3K days, fans would often dream of the day when Mike and crew could lay the smackdown on bloated Hollywood movies like The Matrix and the "new" Star Wars movies.Invasionbmovies 18:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, no one is suggesting that RiffTrax doesn't meet notability guidelines (although your bloggy sources certainly don't establish it). The question is whether the category for films they have riffed is worthwhile. Otto4711 21:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, again, no one is suggesting that the website itself is not notable. That does not mean that the films themselves are notable because they were riffed. Otto4711 18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't any different from Category:MST3K movies at all. These films have been riffed just as much by the RiffTrax crew as the MST3K movies were riffed by the MST crew. Just because the riff track is not permanently affixed to the film, does not nullify that status. I'm not really sure I understand why this is being fought against so fervently. (And, primarily, only by one person, it would seem.) And let's keep the attitudes in check, people. Yourwalletphotograph 08:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is different from MST3K movies. As I've noted, a number of the films in the MST3K categories would not be notable were it not for the MST3K connection. Few or none, most likely none, of the films that get riffed by RiffTrax are notable because of it. I doubt that, if one were to list off the top ten or top 100 notable things about, say, the Star Wars films, "RiffTrax riffed it" would make the list. We can't categorize everything based on every aspect of its existence or circumstances. Otto4711 15:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I were looking at an entry for a movie, I would find it interesting to know that RiffTrax had riffed it. While I understand what you're saying and agree with it to an extent, I fail to see how your argument is all that revelant. It's petty. This is the sort of information that a wiki should include. As RiffTrax increases in popularity - and it is, immensely - it is becoming an increasingly relevant category. I would also like to point out that you're virtually alone on this one, and one-man crusades don't really belong in wikis. Please make sure this is worth battling for so fervently. Yourwalletphotograph 21:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting is not a particularly compelling argument, and neither is popular. One might even call them "petty" if one wanted to be uncivil about it. All sorts of things are interesting and popular; doesn't mean they belong on Wikipedia. Now, if you could explain ever how these films are defined by being a RiffTrax subject or even that it's in any way relevant to the films that they were riffed then you might have a non-petty argument, instead of one based on the weak foundation of how interesting or how popular or like another category it is. Whether I'm alone or not, I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are, Wikipedia isn't a democracy and CFD is not a vote. Otto4711 23:24, 30 May 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:Stop motion-animated films

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 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 debate was rename to Category:Stop-motion animated films. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stop motion-animated films to Category:Stop-motion animated films
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, incorrect hyphenation. —tregoweth (talk) 23:02, 22 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LGBT academics

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< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT academics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These categories are NOT for researchers on LGBT academia. The NOTE on Category:LGBT philosophers makes that clear. These categories are for academics, such as philosophers, social scientists, etc who just happen to be gay or lesbian or transexual. I have not seen anything anywhere to suggest that being any one of those and being an academic is any rarity, article-worthy peculiarity, nor is there any reason to assume any discrimination within the field. Bulldog123 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT philosophers
Category:LGBT social scientists
  • Very Strong Delete as nom, to combat obvious systematic bias and refusal to address arguments. Bulldog123 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep as I struggle to assume good faith in the wake of what appears to be the start of a campaign against LGBT categories - It is unclear why the nominator believes that discrimination in a particular field is required before a category for LGBT people by occupation is allowed. Openly LGBT people in any professional field are a comparative rarity and an academic's sexuality frequently has an impact on his or her choice of field of study. Otto4711 22:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Rarities" in a field do not designate notability. Grey-eyed philosophers are a rarity. You have NO, WHATSOEVER, evidence that an academic's sexuality has an impact on their choice of being a philosopher or social scientist when NEITHER that social science or philosophy is on sexuality. Apparently you are not familiar with Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which is unusual since you use it a lot on other CFD !votes. Unfortunately, I think this is a case of systematic bias and favoritism on your part. Instead of addressing the reasons for deletion and the VERY obvious precedents, including the DEFAULT EXAMPLE of Secular Jewish philosophers, you resort to personal attacks and unfounded accusations. Bulldog123 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A 2-second google search on "lgbt in academia" turns up any number of sources that discuss the issues faced by LGBT people in academia, including for example LGBT scientists must chart their own course
        • Read the article closely though. Here's a quote "However, the audience for this event--around 50 graduate students, postdocs, faculty, and staff--also wanted to know how much personal lives really count in hiring, tenure, and promotion processes. Is being LGBT different in academia than it is in industry?" The articles addresses the possibility of there being a PROBLEM with aspects of a person's personal life and them getting hired. The fact that the article even poses these questions shows it is not a well-established truth, but instead something to be pondered. This could apply to race, religion, ethnicity, sexuality too, and we don't categorize by many of those divisions. ie: A staunchly religious Catholic might not want to hire an atheist, and we already established intersections by religion like this are improper. Bulldog123 15:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I simply don't believe the claim above that this is necessarily a defining attribute. Haddiscoe 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I agree with Otto, it's hard to assume AGF here, more so when the nom has put up 3 LGBT XfD debates (this one included).--Whstchy 03:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The intents of the nominator are NOT pertinent to the reasons for deletion. Keeping on that basis seems like an excuse from reading the actual reasons. If it fits the overcategorization guideline, I will nominate it, even if it's your favorite category on wikipedia. Bulldog123 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The intent of the nominator certainly is relevant, if the nominator is acting in bad faith or to make a point. Otto4711 22:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adolf Hitler could rise from the dead, get a wikipedia account, nominate a category on Jews, LGBT people, African-Americans, etc, and if he gives a legitimate argument for deleting it, I would delete. So no, the intents of the nominator are not relevant, unless the reason is something like "I hate gays" Bulldog123 14:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would welcome a clear statement of why all the arguments used in the recent pogroms of "profession etc by religion" categories do not apply here. Johnbod 10:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning towards delete. The relevant guideline here is WP:CATGRS, which offers a a test of whether a substantive head article can be written on the topic. I think that one could, just, be written; the history of discrimination against LGBT people has made it difficult for LGBT people to be out publicly, and although academia has tended to provide a more inclusive space than other fields of employment, that inclusivity has not always extended to LGBT people. However, there are many groups of people who have endured discrimination (including women, ethnic minorities and some religions), and per our discussions on Jewish mathematicians, I am wary of any intersection category which does not justify why that particular intersection is notable. (LGBT people have endured widespread discrimination everywhere, but the uniquity of that discrim doesn't mean that the intersection with any particular profession is notable).
    There are some academics who are notable for their LGBT status, but the most notable case I can think of is Stephen Whittle, a transsexual man who has studied the law as it applies to trans people. I would recommend a strong keep for a category of "academics of LGBT issues", but I'm struggling to see the justification for this category.
    I will follow the debate, and may change my !vote, but so far I don't see any persuasive reason to keep this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm finding the whole ethnic/national/sexuality/religious pride categorization a problem, but in this case I've looked at the members, and most of them are researchers in sexuality, plus Foucault (who is already categorized as a philosopher) and Turing, whose sexuality problems are certainly notable but have nothing to do with mathematics or computer science. Most of these people can be better categorized under specific disciplines; I would suggest that if the best we can say about them is that they are academics, then they aren't notable. Mangoe 13:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The connections between encyclopedic achievements of two of these people must often be tenuous in the extreme. Greg Grahame 19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the all, not a useful intersection of descriptors. --Peta 23:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Pavel Vozenilek 11:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why does WP categorize people on ethnic/sex/sexual orientation/religious bases anyway? Carlossuarez46 17:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A category for academics who studied these issues would be relevant, but this one is not. Jamie Mercer 22:59, 27 May 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:Current British MPs

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: Judgment call here. Generally we don't subcategorize members of some office between "current" and "former"; indeed, the current members of a parliament are best covered in a list, which gives a lot more context and could be sortable by e.g. party or origin or both. It would seem that most objectors here do not want the information to be lost - but in fact changing a category to a list doesn't lose the information, and may well make it more comprehensive and/or accessible. Of course, canvassing (both at the article and a dozen or so talk pages) to obtain a bunch of "me too" votes really doesn't help matters. And yes, we will be here until christmas, and yes, sortable lists work as advertised these days. So the end result is Listify. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This CfD has been WP:CANVASSed at Talk:Scottish National Party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
National sub-categories
Party sub-categories
  • Merge current British MPs into Category:UK MPs 2005-, but Keep the national and party subcategories. The nominator has failed to provide a cogent reason to delete. Every single category in Wikipedia could be "replaced by lists"; and if we were to delete all the underpopulated categories we would be here til Christmas. An awful lot of work has gone into them already; they should not just be deleted on a whim. (I would however possibly be open to a snappier rename of the subcats, using the "2005-" element.) An awful lot of people are interested in, for example, Scottish politics. It is tremendously useful to have quick access to all the articles for Scottish MPs from a certain period, especially the current session. --Mais oui! 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge current British MPs into Category:UK MPs 2005-, but Keep the national and party subcategories. I agree with Mais oui. --Guinnog 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge as noted above this change makes it harder to find subsections of current MPs, and my experience of sortable lists in wikipedia is that they seldom work as advertisied. Catchpole 18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find any problems in the lists in Category:Lists of UK MPs 2005-? So far as I can see, they all sort perfectly. List-sorting doesn't work where there are rowspans or colspans, but these lists neither need nor use rowspans. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 30 May 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:Users names that are Vancyon

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 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 debate was speedy delete as empty and as nonsense. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users names that are Vancyon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nonsense. Corvus cornix 19:08, 22 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Elected Hereditary Peers in UK House of Lords

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< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Elected Hereditary Peers in UK House of Lords to Category:Hereditary Peers elected under the House of Lords Act
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, present category title is ambiguous - could potentially refer to old Representative Peers (already have own cats), and UK would need unabbreviating. New Progressive 17:25, 22 May 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:Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series

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 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 debate was merge --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series to Category:The Legend of Zelda series
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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:LGBT sportspeople

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 for now, but I suspect there isn't truly a consensus here and it will be relisted in a month or so. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT sportspeople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For the same reasons presented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople. To summarize, this is a non-notable intersection as there is no relationship between how a person handglides and who they have sex with. Though homosexuality or transgenderness may be taboo in sports, this is not a strong enough reason to maintain it. In addition, WP:BLP problems could erupt with a severe lack of sourcing. The only foreseeable reason for keeping is if someone was discriminated against strongly in there respective sport because they were LGBT. This applies to at most a handful of people and lists and categories for them would be overkill. Delete subcategories. Bulldog123 16:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag and list any sub-categories included. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep - Given the low numbers of openly LGBT sportspeople and given the attention that it garners when a pro athlete comes out even years after his/her career is over and given the attitude prevalent in every level of sports competition, given the books written on the topic (including Jocks and Jocks 2 by Dan Woog and the biographies of such athletes as David Kopay, Greg Louganis, Billy Bean and others which discuss the impact of being LGBT in a sports environment) and given the existence of international sports festivals for LGBT athletes, the notability of this intersection is unquestionable. I have no objection to upmerging the subcats but the parent cat must be kept. Otto4711 18:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep this is a valid intersection & per Otto. Carlossuarez46 19:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Otto4711's very persuasive arguments of how much attention is paid to sexuality of sports people; these categories reflect the actual notability of sexuality of sports, and it is inappropriate to delete it because of a POV that it should not be a notable attribute. These categories also meet WP:CATGRS, because it is clearly possible to write a substantive haed article on the subject.
    Also, the nominator is mistaken in the assumption that these categories are solely about who people have sex with, because the subcategories also include Category:Transgender and transsexual sportspeople. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transgenderness in sports seems even LESS relevant, as I haven't seen a single article or analytical mention of that anywhere. Again taboo doesn't designate notability. Lots of things are taboo in sports. Foreigners playing on an American teams is sometimes considered taboo. Obviously something like a sex change will cause controversy just as steroid-use would cause controversy, but by highlighting it, we're giving it way more attention that it deserves as a sports phenomena. You're making a faulty analogy between the relationship of, lets say, scientology and celebritism and sexuality and sports. Bulldog123 16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google is your friend. A 0.44 second google search for "transgender sports" turns up this report from the Australian Sports Commission, which itself cites "Comben, Lisa, 1996, "Transgender Issues in Sport. Problems, Solutions and the Future", Research Paper, Master of Laws, University of Melbourne". So it looks like an academic article can be written on this topic after all. Otto4711 19:46, 23 May 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:Secularism

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< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, not every list should become a category. Contents should be maintained as lists in Secular state. -- Prove It (talk) 16:05, 22 May 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:Live-action/animated films

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 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 debate was delete --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Live-action/animated films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete,With the advent of CGI there are very few feature films that don't have some form of animation in them. The category has become too generic (I see no connection between Spider-Man and Bedknobs and Broomsticks)-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:41, 22 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Non-ruling Austrian royalty

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 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 debate was merge --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-ruling Austrian royalty to Category:Austrian royalty
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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Enderverse characters

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 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 debate was rename to Category:Ender's Game series characters --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_11#Category:Enderverse, which converted the neologism "Enderverse" to "Ender's Game series".--Mike Selinker 12:05, 22 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Applications which use Growl

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< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Applications which use Growl to Category:Software using Growl
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The current name isn't the best English, the newly proposed name covers all forms of software.. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:24, 22 May 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:Xenu

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. Would suggest a new nomination to debate the suggested rename. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Xenu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This category doesn't seem warranted to me. Anything in it would nicely and adequately fit into already existing Scientology hierarchy categories. meco 10:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Wow. That was fast. This category was nominated for deletion a mere 26 minutes after it was created. It helps to categorize articles related to the Xenu mythology story, and is relevant and already contains interesting highly related articles. Smee 10:24, 22 May 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:Rosicrucian Enlightenment

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< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rosicrucian Enlightenment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete -The title is taken from a book by Frances Yates concerning the emergence of Rosicrucianism in the 17th century, but it is clear from the talk page that the editor wishes to list a large number of writers as part of "secret" organizations dating back to the 14th century. The subject is inherently POV an liable to create edit wars. Paul B 09:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was not expecting any other action from such a materialistic mind, as readers may find from my previous words at the Category's talk page. What I could say to you is already well expressed in Prof. Neal Grossman's article (IONS, 2002):

« My colleague believed in materialism not as a scientific hypothesis that, qua scientific hypothesis, might be false, but rather as dogma and ideology that "must" be true, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. For him, materialism is the fundamental paradigm in terms of which everything else is explained, but which is not itself open to doubt. I shall coin the term "fundamaterialist" to refer to those who believe that materialism is a necessary truth, not amenable to empirical evidence. I call it fundamaterialism to make explicit comparison with fundamentalism in religion. Fundamentalism connotes an attitude of certainty towards one's core belief. Just as the fundamentalist Christian is absolutely certain that the world was created in the manner described by The Bible (fossil evidence notwithstanding), so also the fundamaterialist is absolutely certain that there exists nothing that is not made up of matter or physical energy (NDE and other evidence notwithstanding). In fact, and this is the crucial point, their respective beliefs have nothing to do with evidence. As my fundamaterialist colleague put it, "There can't be evidence for something that's false." -- With respect to (a), materialism held as an empirical hypothesis about the world, the evidence against it is overwhelming. With respect to (b), materialism held as an ideology, evidence against it is logically impossible. »

Anything more i could here state in defense of the category nominated to supression by you would be in vain, as the majority of our readers and fellow editors seem to be still too immersed sleeping the illusions, created by materialism dogma that you are so keen to adhere to, in order to make a clear defense stand in the issue brought into here (am i wrong?). Regards. --Lusitanian 10:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this editor's response speaks for itself. Paul B 11:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lusitanian's reply makes it clear that the concept of a "Rosicrucian Enlightenment" has been developed by one author, and it does not appear to be more widely accepted. It might be useful to have an article discussing the concept, but it is not appropriate to use the category system to classify articles according to a analysis which appears to be supported by one lone author. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phrase was coined by Yates (in 1972), but is often used or referred to by other writers (of varying kinds) - try a google scholar search. Her analysis (in this book), however referred to, is not controversial. These are not good reasons to delete the category, which however might be difficult to keep on topic, as defined by Yates, involving a very specific period & a largely anonymous group of writers. A few of the people now in the category are not menioned in the index of the book, though many others have long index entries. Johnbod 00:30, 23 May 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:Flowers of Mexico

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. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Flowers of Mexico (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Undefined and unnecessary offspring of Category:flowers. Flowering plants that grow in Mexico should be in Category:Flora of Mexico, delete. Peta 06:17, 22 May 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.

Arcade games by year

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 the lot of them. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the corresponding year subcategories of Category:20th century video games and Category:21st century video games. These categories overcategorize video games by one particular platform (arcade). For any video game article in both arcade and video game year categories, use the earliest year. This way, there'll only be one year category at the bottom of every video game article, and then subsequent categories for the various platforms it has appeared on.

If consensus is to keep, Category:Arcade games by year should be reinstated, and it should be considered whether Category:DOS games by year, Category:Super NES games by year, etc will also exist.

Note about the history of these categories: The parent category had a CfD on March 8 and the result was merge. What happened was that got deleted, and all the subcategories got moved over to Category:Video games by year. However, this was not the intention of the nomination. From the nomination statement and an archived discussion at WikiProject Video games, the argument was for every subcategory to be merged then deleted. However, the nom was technically incomplete - none of the subcategories in question was actually tagged, though SeizureDog did say that he wanted help in tagging the few dozen of them. Recently, there has also been a somewhat-related discussion on year categories at WT:VG. –Pomte 05:41, 22 May 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:Fictional coffeeshops

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: per the below. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Fictional coffeeshops to Category:Fictional coffee shops
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, see the coffee shop renaming discussion. This should be renamed accordingly.Peta 05:06, 22 May 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:Coffeeshops

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 "houses" as suggested. If necessary, create cats for the other things that "coffeeshop" disambiguates to. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Coffeeshops to Category:Coffee shops
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, the wikipedia article is at coffee shop. I think the creator intended for this category to include only coffee chains (not coffeehouse), so something else may be more appropriate to accurately reflect the contents of the category Peta 05:05, 22 May 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:Soy products

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: egrem. >Radiant< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Soy products (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Merge into Category:Soy and delete. The two categories overlap, products seems the less useful of the two. Category:Coffee doesn't have a subcat for things made with coffee. Peta 05:00, 22 May 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:Natural disasters in 1138

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 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 debate was keep, part of a valid categorisation scheme, and per precedent of other "by <period>" cats.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natural disasters in 1138 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete, Natural disasters in 1138 doesn't need a category of its own. JeffyP 04:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Awesome, a category of one. Probably goes without saying that the "no room for expansion/growth" guidelines applies here. Tarc 12:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:12th century natural disasters. Categorising disasters by time period is a good idea, but in view of the lack of articles so far, by-century-categorisation would be better. (While we're at it, the parent category [:Category:Natural disasters by year]] would be better sub-divided by century). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (changing my !vote). Carlossuarez46's explanation below that these categories are still being populated means that it is better to keep the by-year categories for now, and review the situation after 6 months or a year. It will be easier to upmerge later if needed than than to split again after a merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of nearly 200 by-year categories, some of which contain dozens of articles, so the inference that this system hasn't begun to be implemented on a significant scale yet is incorrect. Alex Middleton 14:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but should consider subdividing parent by decade and century There doesn't appear to be anything wrong off-hand with the intended scheme of Category:Disasters by year to divide disasters by year. Therefore keep this category as part of that scheme. However, that being said, I would recommend that Category:Disasters by year be subdivided into "Disasters by decade" and "Disasters by century" in a similar fashion to other events-by-year such as Category:Births by year and Category:Books by year. That would make the scheme more consistent with similar categories. Dugwiki 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wonder if there is some cut-off point before which natural disasters should be categorised by a larger time period, i.e. decades or centuries. I initiated a by-year breakdown of earthquakes for years 2001 to 2007 in Category:Earthquakes in the 21st century, but deliberately left 20th century and prior categories alone because of the numbers of articles involved. Tim! 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't recommend a cut off date, per se, because theoretically these by-year categories are meant to work in conjunction with other by-year categories. So you can, for example, compare disasters that happened in a specific year with other types of historical events and works that occured or were created in that same year. Thus even if the number of disasters in a particular year was low, it could still be useful to keep it by-year if there are non-disaster by-year articles for that same year for comparison.
So rather than have a cut-off point, I'd say that if the exact year of the disaster is verifiable then it should be categorized by year. However, if the exact year isn't verifiable, but rather we can only verify the decade or century the disaster occured, then that would be an article where having parent categories for decades and centuries are useful. Dugwiki 18:10, 23 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Massacres by Mormons

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 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 debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Massacres by Mormons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete - Overcategorization (non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference; narrow intersection; small with no potential for growth). The topic "massacres by Mormons" applies (so far as I know) only to a single event (the Mountain Meadows massacre), and only that article belongs to the category. There might also be WP:POINT and WP:NPOV issues with the category (see the creator's recent contributions), but I'll leave that for others to decide for themselves. alanyst /talk/ 03:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - (Bad faith nomination, the nominator has already stated 1) the event was a massacre and 2) it was perpetrated by mormons) There were several massacres commited by mormons in Utah, including a massacre of paiute men and children near Santaguin, Utah. Please note nominated for deletion by Mormon church member. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to push a POV here, despite the insinuation based on my religious membership. I believe the category deserves deletion on its merits, as I have stated above. If enough historical events qualify (according to reliable sources) as massacres by Mormons, and if WP has articles on those (again, reliably sourced), then I will gladly withdraw this nomination. At this point it's not a useful category, and suggests a POV due to its lack of notability. alanyst /talk/ 04:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am researching the other massacres committed by mormons and will soon post these stories. If this category is deleted I will simply recreate it when I add the other stories. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but be mindful of the POV concerns that others have expressed here too. You may need to overcome those objections before you re-create the category, or else it will most likely be speedily deleted. alanyst /talk/ 19:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that very much. There do not appear to be legitmate POV concerns related to this label, only image issues and marketing issues with the Mormon Church being classified as a group who committs massacres, and meat puppet votes from Mormon Church members. Do you deny the Mountain Meadows Event was not a Massacre? I think it clearly was, and it was committed by mormons. Now where is the POV there? Stop trying to blame it on Native Americans. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Indent reset.] You are implying that everyone who has expressed concern with the category on this page is a meatpuppet. That violates WP:AGF. Please retract your statement. The concerns are legitimate, and I think you should not dismiss them so readily. Makes it look like you have no faith that you'll prevail in a serious, substantive debate, so you question others' motives and make wild accusations instead. alanyst /talk/ 19:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself have already stated 1) this was indeed a massacre 2) it was committed by mormons. Where is the POV? Given these two facts, I can only state my belief this was a bad faith nomination. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:Overcategorization: "Categorization is a useful tool to group articles for ease of navigation, and correlating similar information. However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category." My nomination is based on that; see my original rationale for deletion. You have once again accused me of acting in bad faith without grounds for doing so. I categorically deny that I am acting in bad faith, or to promote a Mormon POV, or for any other reason incompatible with WP. I ask that you accept this statement as the truth and, once again, retract your accusation of bad faith. alanyst /talk/ 20:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid based upon the evidence, this appears to be a bad faith nomination. I also visited the user pages of the other voters (with the exception of Dan T) all advertise they are mormon church members. I believe this is a bad faith nomination. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There don't seem to be categories for massacres by Muslims, Jews, Christians, or any other religion that I know of... why have one for Mormons (with only one entry)? *Dan T.* 04:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
inaccurate statement. See [[Category:Massacres by Native Americans]]. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Native Americans" is not a religion, and in any case that category does not appear to exist. Haddiscoe 01:03, 23 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anime games

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< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Anime games to Category:Anime and manga games Category:Video games based on anime and manga
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, see below. It covers both already, and it matches the naming convention used by numerous similar categories in the same system. --tjstrf talk 03:26, 22 May 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:Anime lists

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< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Anime lists to Category:Anime and manga lists
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, it covers both anime and manga already and the new name fits the naming convention used by similar categories such as Category:Anime and manga terminology, Category:Anime and manga webcomics, Category:Anime and manga characters, etc. --tjstrf talk 03:16, 22 May 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:Haitian Churches

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< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Haitian Churches to Category:Haitian churches in the United States
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, I first thought this was meant to be a category for churches in Haiti (in which case of course we should rename to Churches in Haiti but in fact the category was intended for Haitian churches in the US. Now I'll admit I'm not quite what constitutes a Haitian church but clearly the category name is too ambiguous as it is. Pascal.Tesson 02:37, 22 May 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:Literature protagonists

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: voided by closure of other nomination.--Mike Selinker 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split: I'd propose split the category into the category Category:Characters in written fiction (under the category Category:Fictional characters by medium) and create the category Category:Protagonists (together with Category:Deuteragonists and Category:Tritagonists under Category:Fictional characters by importance? under Category:Fictional characters) --Brz7 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose - the "Literature protagonists" category is already under consideration for merger to "characters in written fiction." We have a strong consensus against categorizing fictional characters as "protagonsists," "antagonists," "heroes," "villains" and the like because of the POV issues in making the categorization. Categorizing characters as deuteragonists or tritagonists would not only be confusing for those who have no idea what the terms mean but would be a POV nightmare as editors tried to decide who the second-most or third-most important character in a given work is. Where does such a scheme end? How far down the rungs of "importance" do we go, why choose that point to stop and not another, and how do we decide which characters rank at what level? Otto4711 02:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, indeed the character's importance is not always clear; good to read that there's support for the merger to Category:Characters in written fiction --Brz7 10:08, 22 May 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:WikiProject Irish Music participants

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 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 debate was moved to WP:UCFD --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Irish Music participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:WikiProject Irish Music members, duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 01:04, 22 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject Religion pages

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 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 debate was merge to Category:WikiProject Religion articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Religion pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:WikiProject Religion articles, as duplicate. -- Prove It (talk) 00:41, 22 May 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Beck: Soundtracks

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< 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Beck: Soundtracks to Category:To be determined by consensus
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - current name invites ambiguity that the category has something to do with one of the musicians or composers listed at Beck (disambiguation). Since it's both a manga and an anime series I'm not sure what the best rename would be. Otto4711 00:18, 22 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_22&oldid=1139934191"