Category:Characters with LL initials from Superman
- 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/merge as nominated --
Kbdank71
17:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Terrans to
Category:Terrans (StarCraft)
- Nominator's rationale: Rename - many different science fiction stories use the word "Terran" so disambiguation is needed.
Otto4711
21:58, 23 June 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:Austro-Hungarian people by occupation
- 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 --
Kbdank71
17:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Austro-Hungarian people by occupation (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: It's probably not in our best interest to start making categories by occupation for all amalgamation-nations that once existed.
Bulldog123
20:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose The politicians and naval officers seem hard to classify in any other way. The scientists (in fact only one article) I am not so concerned about. Equivalent UK categories take great care to distinguish between early Scottish and English, then British or UK categories, so I don't see why these should not follow the same principle. Not to mention the Ancient Romans or Byzantines.
Johnbod
22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- This, unfortunately, isn't at all comparable to Ancient Romans or Byzantines as ethnic/nationalities were not precisely defined then. Here, they were, and I don't think its a great idea to have separate categories each time a nation merges or joins. Ie: Imperial Russian politicians. Spanish-Netherlands politicians.
Bulldog123
22:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep for the state-related categories (
Category:Austro-Hungarian Navy officers,
Category:Austro-Hungarian politicians), where Austro-Hungarian is the relevant label; but the
Category:Austro-Hungarian scientists could probably be usefully dispersed to
Category:Austrian scientists and
Category:Hungarian scientists. It would probably also be useful to have military and diplomatic subcats of
Category:Austro-Hungarian people by occupation. --09:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Definitely useful subcategorizing for clarifying both citizenship and period.
Dahn
16:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per
Johnbod - and I shouldn't say
Austria-Hungary was any more of an amalgamation-nation than the
UK or the
US.
Xn4
00:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: this category makes sense for people whose occupation was directly related to existence Austria-Hungary (or Austrian Empire or Habsburg lands). Only those politicians with a seat in
Reichsrat or holding some of the highest A-H offices should be included, not every local mayor from a forgotten part of the empire. Scientists or e.g. artists from what is now Belgium should not be listed here.
Pavel Vozenilek
14:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I'd removed the
Category:Austro-Hungarian scientists and recategorised the single person in the tree. Please feel free to nominate it for CfD, it is not really good criterion.
Pavel Vozenilek
14:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep This is highly relevant for occupations related to public service.
Piccadilly
17:57, 28 June 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:Hip hop albums by label
- 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 No Consensus. --
Xdamr
talk
20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Hip hop albums by label (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - another hip hop-specific category breakdown that does not appear to offer anything in terms of organizational utility.
Otto4711
19:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, possibly rename This is one of the few categories that does make sense and, I think, would be too broad for a list or article. Although many labels come and go, hip hop recently celebrated 25 years, I believe, and some of those original labels are still around. Many label owners launched their growing empires through their music labels and now have broadened to influence almost every aspect of pop culture from music to fashion to art and television, and increasingly, politics.
I think some of the other categories like French hip hop albums by label might be premature as long as there is another category like French music labels they can also be in for user ease. Also increasingly music production is a multinational endeavor so categories limiting to one country might be a tad meaningless. After reviewing categories further the national categories do seem fine but maybe break down by continents for user ease. Possibly rename as "album" is becoming archaic to
Category:Hip hop music by label which is useful.
Benjiboi
22:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Decca Records, Columbia Records, RCA Records, etc. have been around a lot longer that any hip hop label. The length of time that a record label or a genre has existed is not a good excuse for breaking down albums by genre and label.
Otto4711
17:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- In the case of hip hop, it's very newness is actually the point. The birth and growth of hip hop directly parallels the growth of not only music television and videos but also the internet. This has meant that whereas older music genres have had established methods of distribution and sales and marketing and fan base usage, the newer music genre used many of those routes but also took advantage of new media.
Benjiboi
21:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- None of which justifies creating an entire separate categorization system for hip hop. No one has felt compelled to create separate category schemes for disco or house or new age or trance or ambient or punk or new wave, all of which came into existence in the last few decades. While hip hop may have found all of these alternative ways to distribute itself (a claim I have yet to see backed up by a reliable source) such distribution methods are not exclusive to hip hop nor are they an endemic feature of hip hop. All of these hip hop categories smack of nothing more than "
I like it so let's call attention to it."
Otto4711
12:44, 28 June 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:Hip hop record labels by nationality
- 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 No Consensus. --
Xdamr
talk
20:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Hip hop record labels by nationality (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - another hip hop-specific breakdown that isn't mirrored in any other genre and is not useful.
Otto4711
19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Although I first doubted the usefulness I have reviewed some of the many nationality articles and they speak of national pride and history intertwined with hip hop which is musical poetry of the oppressed. The Hip hop genre is one of the few music genres that came of age alongside the internet and MTV. Older established genres have had to re-adapt to new media and, I believe, less prevalent on WP. Possibly rename to
Category:Hip hop music by nationality as "records" is becoming an archaic term and some hip hop producers produce music but not complete albums.
Benjiboi
06:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- So, the delete process was keep three months ago. has something changed in that time or what?
Benjiboi
08:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- What's changed is the precendent in the over-catergorization of the hip hop genre being broken down into genre by nationality by location, etc, as per the other deleted cats that Otto has listed.
Lugnuts
07:32, 25 June 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:French hip hop labels
- 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 No Consensus. --
Xdamr
talk
20:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:French hip hop labels (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - this is the only by country breakdown of hip hop record labels. For whatever reason, hip hop has been broken down in ways that no other genre of music has been and none of it is particularly useful from a categorization standpoint.
Otto4711
19:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Although I first doubted the usefulness I have reviewed some of the many nationality articles and they speak of national pride and history intertwined with hip hop which is musical poetry of the oppressed. The Hip hop genre is one of the few music genres that came of age alongside the internet and MTV. Older established genres have had to re-adapt to new media and, I believe, less prevalent on WP. Possibly rename to
Category:French hip hop music to be inclusive to hip hop French music and companies producing it.
Benjiboi
06:23, 24 June 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:Alumni of Watford Grammar School for Boys
- 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:Old Fullerians. --
Xdamr
talk
20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Alumni of Watford Grammar School for Boys to
Category:Old Fullerians
- Nominator's rationale: Alumni of this school are known as 'Old Fullerians' as the school's main article states. This rename will ensure that the category is named as per nearly all of this type, e.g.
Old Etonians
Kernel Saunters
18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - "Old Fullerians" does not clearly identify the subjects of the category. The current name does.
Otto4711
19:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose rename - The "Old Fullerians" name is less clear than the name using "alumni".
Dr. Submillimeter
19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose rename per Otto4711 and Dr S. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
09:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong rename current name is blatantly incorrect. English schools rarely, if ever, have alumni.
DuncanHill
10:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename into British English.
Haddiscoe
12:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per
Kernel Saunters and
Haddiscoe - while this is not the US pattern, a brief glance at
Category:People by school in England will confirm that the proposed name, as well as being correct, will be consistent with almost all similar categories for English schools. It may be obscure at first glance, at least until you click on it and see the summary, but
Old Fullerians is on exactly the same pattern as the existing
Old Alleynians for
Dulwich College,
Old Wykehamists for
Winchester College,
Old Cholmeleians for
Highgate School, and one or two others. The very idea of someone wanting to change
Old Wykehamists into
Alumni of Winchester College makes me feel far from well!
Xn4
01:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Just because the English use ridiculously opaque names to describe these people doesn't mean that a category shouldn't use more transparant language.
Otto4711
01:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
- I expressed no hostility toward any person. I expressed hostility to language which is not understandable to vast segments of the English-speaking world. I would have the same response to categories named with ridiculously opaque Americanisms.
Otto4711
14:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
- The principle is a very useful one in many WP contexts; please don't tell me it is misapplied here.
Johnbod
14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- If you mean it is a general and universal principle, the application of a general principle needs to be purposeful. Still, if your comments are supporting the renaming, we need not disagree!
United States Secretaries of State clearly does not need to be renamed
United States Foreign Ministers.
Xn4
16:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment We appear to have a choice between 1) a name that is incorrect and inconsistent with other related categories, and 2) a name that is correct and consistent. Which is more encyclopaedic - accuracy and consistency or inaccuracy and inconsistency?
DuncanHill
14:41, 27 June 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:Legion of Super-Heroes
- 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 --
Kbdank71
17:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Legion of Super-Heroes (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete - per consensus against categorizing members of super-teams. Nominated once previously and closed
no consensus. If retained, articles for members should still be listified and purged from the category.
Otto4711
17:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - Ths category contains enough articles on the stories or the team itself that it is worth cleaning out with the AutoWikiBrowser and keeping. (On another note, look at
Arm Fall Off Boy.)
Dr. Submillimeter
19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - Again, while I agree that there is an element of "character by team", and to a lesser extent "Foes of Foo", the cat does contain a good measure of material on other subjects related to the comic book series. Since the characters included are almost solely used within those series, and the articles are not extensively interlinked, the cat looks valid. -
J Greb
06:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - categories for character-specific supporting characters, including one for LOSH supporting characters, were deemed inappropriate and deleted per
this CFD so the use of this category to lump characters together is inappropriate on that ground as well.
Otto4711
14:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - move this out of "DC comics superhero teams" to "DC Comics", then listify the members (drop that list back into "DC comics superhero teams"). There are enough related entries, like
Legion of Super Heroes (TV series),
Legion Lost,
Legion of Super-Villains, etc. for this entry to have purpose, it is currently being misused and is a mess in need of cleanup but not deletion. In normal circumstances members of the LoSH would be moved to their own sub-cat but this would be instantly listified, so I see moving them off to a list as cutting out the middleman in this process. (
Emperor
15:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
reply
- Keep. This category is about more than team membership.
Doczilla
07:42, 26 June 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:Hindu denominations
- 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 --
Kbdank71
17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Hindu denominations (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This category is an AWFUL mess. See what it contains and you'll understand what I mean
Kkrystian
17:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- In fact (despite what the template on the caegory itself says - these can be misleading) I'm not sure the nom was intending deletion. The category now does look cleaner than I remember it a few days ago, so thanks to someone. What about a rename as suggested above, to include "schools" - surely the more commonly used term?
Johnbod
00:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Acutally, from my knowledge both Hindu denomination and Hindu schools exist. The term schools is used for different types of Hindu philosophy whereas denomination is used for different sects. At the moment, the schools of Hindu philosophy [[eg.
Advaita) aren't in the category, so I think it is fine as it is, though maybe another category called Schools of Hindu philosophy is needed. You can read the
Hinduism page to see how the terms are differentiated.
Gizza
Discuss
©
00:23, 29 June 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.
- 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. --
Xdamr
talk
20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Green Lanterns (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - per consensus against categorizing members of super-teams.
List of Green Lanterns exists so no additional listification is needed.
Otto4711
17:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. That's true. We've gone through and agreed to delete a lot of team categories. !
Doczilla
05:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as "characters by team" cat consensus is to avoid. One additional thought though... as with the premise underlying Flash (comics) below, it may be a good idea to Upmerge the contents to the parent cat first. -
J Greb
06:46, 24 June 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.
- 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. --
Xdamr
talk
20:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Sinestro Corps (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - per consensus against categorizing the members of super-teams. An appropriate list exists in the lead article
Sinestro Corps so no further listification is needed.
Otto4711
17:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. That's true. We've gone through and agreed to delete a lot of super-team categories.
Doczilla
05:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as "characters by team" cat consensus is to avoid. One additional thought though... as with the premise underlying Flash (comics) below, it may be a good idea to Upmerge the contents to the grandparent cat first. -
J Greb
06:44, 24 June 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.
- 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 --
Kbdank71
17:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Flash (comics) (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - serving almost entirely as a container category for Flash villains, which by strong precedent is improper. Absent improperly categorized articles the remaining material does not appear to require an emponymous category.
Otto4711
17:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - This looks like it contains a few articles on the stories, such as
Flash of Two Worlds,
The Flash (TV series),
The Flash (video game), and two lists as well as two subcategories that all belong in a category together. It would be better to clean this up using the AutoWikiBrowser than to delete it.
Dr. Submillimeter
19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - While I agree that most of the listed articles (30 of the 55... 57 if the objects cat is merged up) are supervillains/foes, they are also, for the most part (1 is arguable), characters used primarily or solely in comic book series revolving around the primary Flash characters. The remaining are articles covering primary characters, supporting characters, locations & items, in addition to the articles the actual comics and related media. Given that these articles are not extensively inter-linked, the cat seems valid. -
J Greb
06:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - categories for character-specific supporting characters, including one for Flash supporting characters, were deemed inappropriate and deleted per
this CFD so the use of this category to lump supporting characters together is also inappropriate.
Otto4711
14:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment -
Otto4711 is right. Defining characters by their appearance in comic books does not work, as characters will appear in many comic books. (
Rick Jones (comics) is a good example.) I believe it even goes against the wishes of WikiProject Comics (which does not even want to categorize characters by team). Moreover, many categories for characters by adversary have even been blocked from recreation.
Dr. Submillimeter
17:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Fair point... but it does beg a question. If we remove all of the character (ie stop it from being a side step of the "No 'Foes...' and 'Cast...'" ban), is there enough potential in articles for the fictional locations, fictional items, games, comics, story arcs, etc to justify the cat? I think there may be, but I'm not sure. Thoughts?
(Side note: I think this is similar to Emporer's suggestion up page under the Legion CfD. Also, if may mean that the parent/grandparent
Category:Green Lantern for the Green Lanterns and Sinestro Corps also needs to be looked at.) -
J Greb
20:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - The category would be small, but it would contain enough material to justify having the category. Moreover, the category has potential for growth. I could imagine many articles being written on the Flash comic books.
Dr. Submillimeter
09:32, 25 June 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:American Methodists
- 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 --
Kbdank71
17:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:American Methodists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Same as below - hopelessly broad.
The Evil Spartan
15:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep This is one of hundred of religion by nationality categories, and there is no reason to single it out for deletion. Some are large some are small, but so what, that's just a reflection of the real world.
Alex Middleton
00:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep part of
Category:Methodists by nationality, which is similar to the other denominations divisions of
Category:Protestants by nationality.
Mairi
01:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Alex Middleton and Mairi. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
09:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Process keep; I'd vote delete if all religions were nominated together, but we cannot pick just one.
Carlossuarez46
18:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per
Alex Middleton and
Mairi.
Xn4
00:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong keep -- any and all religious categories are very important and must be saved at any cost. --
172.133.41.211
07:11, 28 June 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:Methodist politicians
- 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 --
Kbdank71
17:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Methodist politicians (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: A hopelessly broad category that could never hope to be complete
The Evil Spartan
15:31, 23 June 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.
- 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 keep per
Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion_discussion, which says "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly". The nominator has not advanced any arguments which move the debate beyond the
previous discussion less tan two months ago, which considered the issues at length, and (per
WP:DEL) "it can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome". --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
17:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Bonesmen (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: This is the perfect example of a category that should be listified instead of categorized. Half the people on this list are presidents, and the category just becomes category-cruft under their name. This was nominated once for deletion before at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 26.
The Evil Spartan
15:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete It's a fraternity, which we've deleting left and right; and every fraternity is unique, but all are trivial; there is a list in the article of its notable members, if the membership is important to the biography it'll be mentioned there; if anyone cares to follow that link they'll see all the other notable members, so nothing is lost.
Carlossuarez46
22:12, 23 June 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:Back to the Future music
Category:Ghostbusters music
- 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 --
Kbdank71
20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Ghostbusters music (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - of the seven items in the category, two are improper performer by performance articles for composers and three are for songs which were not written for the film. The remaining two do not require this category, which is
small with no likelihood of expansion.
Otto4711
15:15, 23 June 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:Lists of fictional places
- 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:Old Citizens (City of London School) --
Kbdank71
20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Old Citizens to
Category:Alumni of the City of London School
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, because the present name in unclear: I first saw it in the article on
Hal Miller, and assumed that it was some daftly-named new category for old people, along the lines of "
senior citizens").
It turns out to be for former pupils of the
City of London School, who call themselves "old citizens". That is of course their privilege, but while many other such names (such as
Old Redingensians) are merely obscure, "
Old Citizens" is a deeply misleading category name, and I would be surprised if as many as 1% of readers guessed that
Category:Old Citizens was anything other than a category for old people.
Nearly all the sub-categories of
Category:People by school in England are named in the "old Fooian" format, but one is called "Former students of Foo", and three are called "Alumni of Foo". I have no particular preference for either format, but have proposed "alumni of" since it is fractionally more widely used.
I have looked in the guidelines, and while
WP:NCCAT offers nothing helpful,
WP:COMMONNAME offers the following guidance: "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative".
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
13:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Previous CfR: Note that this category was previously
discussed in December 2006, with no consensus. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
13:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose this has been proposed before. Old Citizens is the correct usage, English schools rarely, if ever, have alumni.
DuncanHill
10:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose The present name is correct.
Haddiscoe
12:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
City of London School Old Citizens. While I generally support
Alex Middleton,
DuncanHill and
Haddiscoe's objections, I also see that
Old Citizens has the same faults as
Old Blues, a category I created for the former pupils of
Christ's Hospital. After a
discussion in May,
Bduke (who had proposed
Christ's Hospital alumni) and I agreed on
Christ's Hospital Old Blues.
City of London School Old Citizens is a little clumsy, but it would not upset anyone and there clearly is a problem with
Old Citizens.
Xn4
01:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Old Citizens (City of London School), since Old Citizens is the common name but ambiguous. --
Tikiwont
11:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to
Old Citizens (City of London School), per
Tikiwont - less clumsy than my suggestion.
Xn4
14:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename to one of the two new suggestions just above.
Johnbod
14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, as proper usage for this particular school and standard form for
Category:People by school in England, especially in absence of evidence that the category is actually being misued by people thinking that it is for elderly citizens (lower-case); failing which, rename to
Category:Old Citizens (City of London School) if clarification is thought necessary, and as being far preferable to "Alumni" format (as school uses "Old" not "Alumni", and so do the majority in
Category:People by school in England).
Bencherlite
19:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- CommentI don't see any eveidence of editors misusing the category, but we are building the encyclopedia for readers, not editors, and short of useability testing, there is no way of telling how it works for readers. So we have to rely on our own judgement, and "OLd Citizens" is misleading. I'd be okay with
Category:Old Citizens (City of London School) if otheeditors want to go with that ... almost anything other than the plain "old citizens". --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
21:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Readers can find out what "Old Citizens" means by clicking on the category name at the bottom of an article, and they'll see the explanatory text "This is a category of
alumni of the
City of London School, known as "Old Citizens"." I would have thought this was sufficient to avoid any problems of the category name being "misleading" for readers.
Bencherlite
21:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per above. This category does not give most readers a clue of what it contains from the name.
Vegaswikian
05:33, 28 June 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:Other bodies of the European Union
- 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 --
Kbdank71
20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
Oppose I note that no rationale for deletion has been offered. There are categories for winners of World Cup, European Championship etc: why not for this title?
Kevin McE
08:39, 23 June 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:Hollywood inspired
Category:Hollywood dance agencies
- 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 --
Kbdank71
20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Hollywood dance agencies (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category, seems unlikely to expand. Not part of a larger structure of dance studios by city.
Otto4711
07:07, 23 June 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.
- 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 --
Kbdank71
20:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Hollywood Rose (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous
overcategorization. The members subcat and name article do not require a category.
Otto4711
07:05, 23 June 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.
- 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 --
Kbdank71
20:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Wayans family (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous
overcategorization. As with many other show business family categories, the articles are extensively interlinked. There is no need for the eponymous category for navigational purposes.
Otto4711
06:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom and per Doczilla. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
13:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom & ample precedent.
Carlossuarez46
18:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Very strong keep -- OK, we all know Otto4711 personally despises any and all family categories (is he letting his personal POV cloud his judgment when it comes to these family categories?). But his original intention was to only delete those family categories that had a head list/article that listed all of the family members in one place and allowed for even quicker interlinking. Now he has changed his mind (for whatever reason) and has started nominating articles without these (once required) head lists/articles. He may say that "the articles are already extensively interlinked" but categories are always the easiest and cleanest way to group similar information, and it's best if a user can see it all in one place; "interlinking" doesn't even come close to the usefulness of categories, and we all know that. Also,
Category:Hollywood families continues to dwindle as more and more of these subcategories are deleted. Finally, there is a definite paucity of African-American categories/articles/topics on Wikipedia, and I say that the more we can retain the better. The Wayans family is a very notable African-American show-business family in America, and they deserve a category just as much as any other notable family. For all of the aforementioned reasons, I vote to keep. I'm also surprised at your vote BHG: have you now given up on family categories too? --
172.133.41.211
07:10, 28 June 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.
- 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 --
Kbdank71
20:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:IRL films to
Category:Films about interracial romantic relationships
- Nominator's rationale: Rename - the existing name makes absolutely no sense and the rename is in line with other subcats of
Category:Films by topic. In the alternative, delete as non-defining, since films with such relationships are not necessarily "about" them.
Otto4711
06:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom, listify if anyone wants to. Lists are much better for this sort of topic, because a list could explain the significance of the interracial romantic relationship(s) in that film: "Illicit love between a Nazi stormtrooper and Gay Jewish Gyspsy in Poland in 1942", "Film about an orangeman in Derry; one minor character is his estranged sister who married a papist"; "Romantic comedy about an eskimo who marries a bedouin and goes to live the Negev desert"; "Story of a South African rugby team in the 1950s, one minor character is dropped for marrying a black woman", etc --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
13:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per BrownHairedGirl. At the first I thought it is about this
IRL.
Pavel Vozenilek
14:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Generally, categorizing films by content does not work well, as films may discuss multiple subjects. Moreover, it may be difficult to determine whether such a relationship anyhere in the film is sufficient for meeting the vague inclusion criteria. For example, if two minor characters form a mixed-race couple, would that film be included in the category? What a biograhpical film where a person is briefly in a relationship with a person from another race? An article discussing the topic in general while citing a select few specific examples would be much better.
Dr. Submillimeter
16:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename There is no reason to delete this category. And the majority of the films are based on the relationship or the relationship has a significance in the film. Like LGBT-related films, some it may not be directly related but it deals with it and is important in interracial love/relationships and miscegenation history. And also Dr. Submillimeter, yes some of the films may talk about other topics as with most films do but it is still significant and important for some, enough to be mentioned.--
Migospia
†♥
23:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Listify. -
Sean Curtin
05:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as ultimately vague, POV, non-definitional, and not encyclopedic. "Inter-racial" is a very US or Western centric viewpoint. What defines race? What defines whether the movie is "about" it? And as (US/Western) society's attitudes about race change, films "about" inter-"racial" relationships are less remarkable or defining.
Carlossuarez46
19:08, 25 June 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.
- 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 --
Kbdank71
20:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Subcults (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: unnecessary parent caegory, only contains one hild cat, New Religious Movements, and is also POV since it is classed under "cults" implying that the groups mentionned under New Religious Movements are also cults.
Sfacets
03:50, 23 June 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:The Black Wall Street
- 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 no consensus --
Kbdank71
18:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:New Age female spiritual leaders (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Delete, Isn't spiritual leader subjective? Or at least rename to
Category:New Age spiritual leaders. --
Prove It
(talk)
00:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, I think it's an interesting phenomenon that in the
New Age movement it is women who often become spiritual leaders. Though there are many male New Age leaders, this category is at least interesting.
Copy Editor
06:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - The term "spiritual leader" seems to be used to broadly encompass authors or people with any level of leadeership position in any New Age movement. Using more specific categories would be more appropriate.
Dr. Submillimeter
- Comment With the exception of
Helen Schucman, all people currently listed in this category have led congregations or spiritual groups at some point. And I might add that
A Course In Miracles, the book that Helen Schucman wrote (or allegedly channeled from Jesus), has been used as the basis for various churches, such as
Endeavor Academy.
Laughing Jesus
08:33, 24 June 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.
- 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 --
Kbdank71
17:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:The Game (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous
overcategorization. The material does not require this categorization to interlink it.
Otto4711
00:40, 23 June 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.