March 1
Category:Founding Fathers of the United States
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Delete. The subcats were removed so that the bots can process the nomination since there appeared to be consensus to keep the subcats.
Vegaswikian
06:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Founding Fathers of the United States (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Delete - (This is a relisting from
13 Feb 2007, where the discussion was closed as "no consensus" despite 6 votes for deletion and 3 for keeping.) According to
Founding Fathers of the United States, this category may contain "the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution, or otherwise participated in the American Revolution as leaders of the Patriots." (Note that this statement is not supported by an inline citation in the article.) The inclusion criteria are overly broad and allow for too much of a gray area for the interpretation of who was a "leader" during the American Revolution. Several other categories already specify exactly what these people did to contribute to the foundation of the United States (such as
Category:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and
Category:Signers of the United States Constitution). These specific categories are very useful;
Category:Founding Fathers of the United States is too broad, open to vague interpretation, and ultimately less than useful. In the previous discussion, it was suggested that this could function as a container category for thes subcategories. However, because of its vague interpretation of what a "founding father" is, virtually any pro-revolutionary may be placed within
Category:Founding Fathers of the United States. Moreover, some people generally called "founding fathers" (such as
Benjamin Franklin and
Thomas Jefferson) who also signed the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution will be listed by editors in both this parent category and the subcategories anyway. This category therefore will not work as a container category either. The category ends up contributing to category clutter in these people's articles, making the category lists difficult to read and thus difficult to use for navigation. The category should be deleted.
Dr. Submillimeter
00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - Were all the people who wrote the Constitution involved in the American Revolution? If so, then a merge would be appropriate. If not, then the category should be deleted. (Many look like they are listed in "colonial people" or "American Revolution" categories anyway.)
Dr. Submillimeter
11:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
- Yeah, I realize that. While I was reading your comment, I was thinking of the nominator's statement: According to Founding Fathers of the United States, this category may contain "the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution, or otherwise participated in the American Revolution as leaders of the Patriots." But you weren't talking about the Declaration. Ignore my tangent. —
coel
acan —
14:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Social justice and poverty
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was merge
Category:Social justice and poverty into
Category:Poverty
-
Category:Social justice and poverty to
Category:Poverty
- Merge - This is relisted from
17 Feb 2007. This was a subcategory of
Category:Social justice, which was deleted mainly because the term "social justice" was too vague and appeared to encompass too many topics. While people agreed on deleting the parent category, no consensus was reached on what to do with this subcategory. I originally suggested deletion, but now I suggest merging this into
Category:Poverty. I honestly see no difference between the articles in this category and the articles in
Category:Poverty (and some articles, such as
child poverty and
War on Poverty, are found in both categories anyway).
Dr. Submillimeter
23:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge "Social justice" means whatever one wants it to mean. (Not that "Poverty" isn't a problematic term too, but I guess there is a topic here, so the related articles should be grouped.)
ReeseM
01:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge Although both "social justice" and "poverty" are normative terms, "poverty" can be quantified (albeit arbitrarily) by government guidelines, etc. --
William Thweatt
Talk |
Contribs
01:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Looney Tunes cast members
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --
RobertG ♬
talk
09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Looney Tunes cast members (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete - this has been tagged with Listify however I believe it is more appropriate to delete without listifying. The category is designed to capture voice actors who worked on cartoons which may be unrelated to each other in any way other than being produced by the same studio, making this more akin to the deleted and salted Disney voice actors category than a category for an individual televiosn series or film. Improper performer by production company-style categorization.
Otto4711
23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Carbon neutral 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --
RobertG ♬
talk
09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Carbon neutral films (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, This category makes no sense. It is entirely unclear what it even means. Does it mean that the makers of these films pledged not to release carbon during the making of those films? or that the films advocate carbon neutrality? Even this is problematic: what is probably the most likely candidate for this category, An Inconvenient Truth, never uses the phrase "carbon neutrality".
ILike2BeAnonymous
23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Modern Looney Tunes cast members
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --
RobertG ♬
talk
09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Modern Looney Tunes cast members (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete - This category is to capture performers from a variety of series, films, and specials, making it an improper performer by company categorization. Voice actors can and do work for a wide range of production companies in the course of their careers. We have already deleted similar categories for such people as Disney voice actors. The category should be deleted.
Otto4711
23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The Land Before Time cast members
Category:Lists of shows by Tim Minear
Category:OverClocked ReMix
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --
RobertG ♬
talk
09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:OverClocked ReMix (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, Only one article other than the self-titled main article, and it redirects to it.
OverClocked ReMix is already in the parent category so there's nothing to merge here. --
Vossanova
o<
21:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dune book 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no change.
Propose renaming
Category:Dune book series to
Category:Dune novels
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for consistency with other novel series. The existing name sounds as if it has been left after deleting former sub-categories for the original series, prequels, etc. After this I will create an intermediate
Category:Dune books between this and
Category:Dune universe media to hold the short stories & 'pedia.
Fayenatic london
(talk)
21:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Báthory
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename. --
RobertG ♬
talk
09:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Báthory to
Category:Báthory family
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for clarity in line with many other categories for individual families.
CalJW
20:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Institutions named after Albert Einstein
Category:Futurologists
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was No Consensus.
Vegaswikian
06:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Futurologists (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Delete - I originally nominated this for renaming on
2007 Feb 7 to be renamed as "futurist consultants". I had thought that the category was supposed to be used for people paid by corporations for information on future developments. However, looking at
futurist,
futurologist,
list of futurologists, and
future studies more carefully, it appears that this category was originally intended to include science fiction writers (who so frequently write about the future that it is not a defining characteristic), scientists and economists who have made predictions about the future, and other people. Few of these people are not connected to any other profession. This collection of people is not useful. In particular, discussion of the future is not a defining characteristic for some groups of people, especially science fiction wrtiers (where people normally write about the future). This should be deleted. (I apologize for not coming to this realization during the first nomination.)
Dr. Submillimeter
08:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, and partly depopulate to sub-categories. Create new sub-
Category:Futurist consultants, which would be a useful defining characteristic as per the second sentence above, and move such individuals down into it. The existing head category is also of interest. Let
SF writers also be a sub-category of
Category:Futurologists, and remove individual writers from the head category (or allow some to remain if widely recognised for making serious real-world predictions). Other futurologists who fit neither of these sub-categories, e.g. scientists and economists, should remain in the head category. -
Fayenatic london
(talk)
20:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - some sf writers have also written significant non-fiction books of speculation about the future. It's not really surprising, is it, if these two kinds of writing overlap somewhat in terms of the authors involved?
David Brin is one who immediately springs to mind, though I'm not sure whether or not he has actually been placed in the relevant category. The most important is doubtless
Arthur C. Clarke. I can think of others -
Damien Broderick is another one - but it doesn't mean that every science fiction writer has done it; most probably haven't, and it would actually be a quite limited number who have. Really, I'm not sure I see what the problem is supposed to be.
Metamagician3000
12:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - It is not clear that Clarke or other sci-fi writers are included in this category because of their non-fiction works. Actually, it is not clear as to who would or should be included in this category. It seems like an economist who makes a prediction about future stock market prices or a sociologist making predictions about what society will be like in 20 years would fall into this category, too. It effectively boils down to "people who predict the future". Is it really useful for categorization?
Dr. Submillimeter
13:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Fair comment - but there probably is a case to keep some sort of category for books such as those I mentioned, whether or not written by sf writers, and/or for their authors. My point is that there might be a legitimate explanation for certain sf writers falling into such a category.
I do wonder why we need futurist and futurologist. At a minimum, these cats need to be rationalised somehow. Whoops, see below. I misunderstood. My bad. HOWEVER, when we look at the articles,
Futurologist redirects to
Futurist. So wouldn't it make sense to be consistent and make the caterory one of "futurists"? It would also make sense for consistency to change the
List of futurologists article to
List of futurists, yes?
Metamagician3000
23:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:African American hip hop groups
National parks of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
RoboCop
Category:HBO personalities
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --
RobertG ♬
talk
09:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:HBO personalities (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete - the category is currently serving as a parent to six "cast members" categories, all of which have been put up for speedy deletion per their Listify tags. It is also holding ten articles for people who at some point had a show on HBO. This is an improper performer by company categorization. The typical article in this category has over two dozen categories on it, a solid mass of navigation-hindering text. This category should be deleted.
Otto4711
16:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete vague category.
Doczilla
17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete This is similar to doing "actor by television network", and we've had other such cfds recently for other networks as I recall. Basically this is a bad idea because many actors perform for numerous production companies in their career and you could easily end up with too many of these categories per actor article.
Dugwiki
18:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The Sopranos cast members
Category:Six Feet Under cast members
Category:Oz (TV series) cast members
Category:Entourage (TV series) cast members
Category:Curb Your Enthusiasm cast members
Category:Big Love cast members
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --
RobertG ♬
talk
09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Big Love cast members (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Speedy delete per Listify tag. Article
Big Love has a cast list (and relationship chart) which satisfies speedy delete conditions.
Otto4711
15:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Forbes 400
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --
RobertG ♬
talk
13:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Forbes 400 (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Delete - This category used an arbitrary inclusion limit, a form of
overcategorization. It is unclear why to stop at 400 instead of 300 or 500 other than Forbes magazine decided that 400 would be a cool number. Moreover, the category's contents will fluctuate from year to year, making this category unstable. The category should be deleted. If so desired, the Forbes 400 should be listed for a given year of publication.
Dr. Submillimeter
15:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, arbitrary moving target.
Quatloo
17:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete As above, the 400 is arbitrary and the results change year to year. A better way to handle this is to provide year to year list articles rather than placing category tags in the associated articles.
Dugwiki
18:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete A well chosen limit should not be described as "arbitary", but the problem with the category is that it does not reveal when each person made the list. Also, there is no way of telling at a glance whether the category is complete or accurate. Listifying is out of the question as it would be a breach of copyright.
Wimstead
18:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- To see why 400 is probably arbitary, simply ask why the list has "400" members instead of "300" or "500". The only explanation I can think of off-hand is that the Forbes editors pretty much arbitrarily picked the number "400", maybe for space reasons ("We can't fit 500 in one magazine") or for alliterative purposes (sounds better when said out loud than "Forbes 300"). So lacking evidence to the contrary, I'm guessing it's an arbitrary limit on the size of the category.
Dugwiki
18:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- "Arbitary" is a pejorative term. 400 was a reasonable number for Forbes to choose (unlike 23 or 37,312) and the category creator could not have chosen any other number. In my opinion dismissing this name as arbitary is an unjust aspersion against the judgement of the category creator, who is an outstanding editor.
Wimstead
13:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep if Wimstead is correct that "Listifying is out of the question as it would be a breach of copyright", as I suspect he is.
Johnbod
21:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete As a breach of copyright. We have
category:Billionaires, which has its drawbacks, but does not breach copyright (or provide free advertising for a magazine either).
ReeseM
14:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People commemorated by blue plaques
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete as overcategorisation, and listify. Tricky, but I think I perceive a consensus. Purely on a head-count it's 9-3 support for the nominator's rationale. I looked at the previous discussion of
blue plaque categories pointed to by Oosoom, and in my judgement it does not address the issue raised by the Dr. Submillimeter. While a blue plaque is not exactly a posthumous award, most contributors here seem convinced it is effectively one. Also the plaque links the person and a building, information not amenable to Wikipedia categorisation but perfectly feasible on a list. No-one disputed Jpbowen's argument for the blue plaques' cultural significance, but neither was it accepted as an argument in favour of keeping this category. My robot will create a list at
list of people commemorated by blue plaques in due course. --
RobertG ♬
talk
14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:People commemorated by blue plaques (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Delete and listify - This category is for people who are commemorated by
blue plaques within the city of London. It is effectively categorization by award. The people who are commemorated by blue plaques tend to be people who are so famous that they win many awards anyway (such at
W. B. Yeats and
T. E. Lawrence and other people missing from the category). Categorization by award like this is infeasible, as it leads to severe category clutter. I suggest listifying and deleting this category (and I am willing to listify the category myself).
Dr. Submillimeter
15:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Correction Not the "city of London" if by that you mean the
City of London, a tiny part of the whole city, which the scheme covers. Also see JP Bowen below - other parts of the country have similar schemes
Johnbod
00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Note to administrator - If this discussion is closed with a decision to delete and listify, please contact me so that I may listify the category.
Dr. Submillimeter
15:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. If you listify (and I'm unclear on why a list is appropriate), can't the title be reworded to clarify what kind of "blue plaques" you're talking about?
Doczilla
17:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment -
Blue plaques are known to be special historical markers within the United Kingdom. Since the article on
blue plaques does not contain any disambiguation links and since most Google searches turn up pages directly related to these blue plaques, I do not see the need for adding disambiguation to a list article. I will, however, add a brief introduction describing the blue plaques before writing the list.
Dr. Submillimeter
23:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. There are lists in the external links from
blue plaque.
Wimstead
18:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Keep
Keep. This category was assessed for deletion three months ago. I believe the arguments for keeping it to be pesuasive and unchanged. Please read the discussion
here before deciding to vote. I don't understand the reference to London above. This is not correct.
Oosoom
Talk to me
09:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - That previous discussion does not address a key point made here. This category represents one of many honors that these people received for their actions. Categorization by awards and honors like this is not feasible, as some articles would be overwhelmed with categories listing all the awards that these people have won. I am willing to transcribe the information, which would also satisfy some of the other problems indicated in the last nomination. With a list, it would be possible to link the locations with the people.
Dr. Submillimeter
10:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I agree that category bloat could be an issue. However, I don't see the blue plaque as an award (such as an Oscar), but more as a factual link to a building or place. For example, Mozart's plaque(s) in London doesn't need to tell me that he was famous or important, but that he was here (sorry about the apparant local bias, but I made a special trip to see if it was really true). His being in a category, I could then jump straight to other buildings of interest, such as those of Handel and Jimmy Hendrix (intriguingly next to each other), and Vita Sackville West, actually next to Mozart's. Perhaps I am not sure how a list would help me, but I reckon that categories are the most reliable and easiest way to point both ways - person article to list, and list to person/place/building.
Oosoom
Talk to me
11:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Misunderstandings I think there are two general misunderstandings about blue plaques. 1 while they started in London, and while English Heritage has a strong link to blue plaques they exist all over the country and are created by many different bodies. In addition, there are many bodies erecting plaques in London. Any reference to London or English Heritage is mistaken. 2 Plaques are not awards to a person. They are a commemoration of an association of a person to a place or building and therefore a record of local history. While the individual building or site may not of itself be worthy of an article, it is the association of a person or event with that place which is notable. What I am trying to say is that it is the categorisation that is notable, and should remain. I see the plaques in the same way as monumental sculptures. Would anyone seriously consider deleting
Category:Outdoor sculptures in the United States from such articles as
Statue of Liberty?
Oosoom
Talk to me
13:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong keep — as mentioned above, this has been discussed before. The blue plaques category together with its two sub-categories for people and places, provides a useful and sometimes delightfully serendipitous way to cross-link people and places. Not many people achieve the status of being honoured with a blue plaque so I think it should remain manageable in practice. (For information, in London I believe you have to be dead for at least 20 years, usually much more, to get one and Jimi Hendrix was one of fastest to be honoured in this way.) I would be disheartened to see this category and sub-categories disappear. Please also note that blue plaques are not always in London (for example,
Oxfordshire has a similar scheme) and there are not even always blue, although many are, especially if officially installed. —
Jonathan Bowen
12:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - These "not many people achieve this status" arguments and "the categories make it useful for navigation" arguments could easily be applied to many other awards and honors won by these individuals. The problem is that everyone who likes a certain award or honor (such as the Boy Scout enthusiasts who supported
Category:Silver Buffalo awardees) will somehow argue that their particular honor or award is more important than the Nobel Prize. The main problem with these award and honor categories is that if everyone includes their "important" award or honor category, the categories eventually lead to a sprawling list of category links in the people's articles that are difficult to read or use for navigation. These categories are inappropriate for navigation.
Dr. Submillimeter
14:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
Dr. Submillimeter. Essentially random.
AshbyJnr
19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete (additional reason):
Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_winners states that only those awards that are best known internationally should be categorized. Most of us non-Europeans have never heard of those blue plaques. This should be listified per nom.
Doczilla
22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: (Argument for Keep) There seems to be a misunderstanding here.
Blue plaques are not awards, they are not categorised as such on Wikipedia. Instead, they are a commemoration of the location of famous people at least 20 years after their death. They are much more to do with
cultural heritage and history than awards, as you will notice if you look at the categories under which it resides. They are a very important part of recording British cultural history. Thus I do not think any guidance concerning awards should apply here. Rather, importance with respect to cultural heritage should apply. And I believe there is a strong case here. They are nationally important in Britain. —
Jonathan Bowen
22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- delete Due to the minimal level of connection between the articles.
LukeHoC
14:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep They are certainly notable and distinct enough to keep.
Johnbod
00:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete No one is notable for having a blue plaque, they are notable for the things they did to earn a blue plaque, and they will be categorised on the basis of those attributes. This is clutter.
ReeseM
14:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and Listify Not a defining characteristic of the people who are mentioned, also per WP:OC#Awards. I am undecided on the other two categories that were previously discussed, but they are not up for discussion here. ~
Bigr
Tex
15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and Listify Blue plaques are not a defining characteristic of the person commemorated, as such it is inappropriate that biography articles should be thus categorised. On the other hand they are somewhat defining for the buildings concerned, so I would probably have less objection to a notional
Category:Buildings with Blue plaques, or similar. This information should most certainly be around somewhere, so I strongly support listification first—this is a highly significant cultural manifestation in the UK, not an award as some editors above seem to believe.
-
Xdamr
talk
14:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I figured out that a blue plaque should be called a "commemoration". I think the English Heritage website uses this term. While a "commemoration" is not necessarily an award or honor, it may certainly seem like one in practice.
Dr. Submillimeter
22:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Given that they typically commemorate people who are long dead I'm not sure that it amounts to an award/honour in general terms. Still, I suppose that it is a minor point. --
Xdamr
talk
02:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Actually we already have
Category:Buildings with blue plaques. I'd be happy to see more buildings added to this category. --
Xdamr
talk
00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Killed in horse-riding accidents
Category:Christians in Science
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --
RobertG ♬
talk
09:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Christians in Science (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete. overcategorization. Trivial overlap. There have been lots of Christians who were scientists, lots of Muslims and Hindus and Jews etc. who were scientists, but their religion and their scientific careers are fairly well unrelated. Every scientist is a
methodological naturalist in the laboratory anyway. —
coelacan
talk —
05:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Category is also excessively broad, essentially undefined, and inappropriately capitalized.
Doczilla
08:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - For some scientists, their religion was related to their careers for various reasons (mainly because they were priests or monks). For most scientists, however, religion has little to do with their scientific careers, even if it did play a part in their personal lives. Also note that several science/religion categories have already been deleted (such as
Category:Roman Catholic scientists (4 Jan 2007) and
Category:Atheist scientists (11 Jan 2007)) for similar reasons.
Dr. Submillimeter
10:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete This is an irrelevant intersection in most cases.
Haddiscoe
13:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I could just barely see a narrower category, such as
Category:Jesuit scientists, being useful for historical reasons.
Anville
14:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- "Keep" and then create
Category:Christians in carpentry,
Category:Christians in law,
Category:Christians in publishing, etc… (this is a vote to delete) −
Twas Now (
talk •
contribs •
e-mail )
09:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Criticisms of atheism
Category:British Socialists
Category:Alister McGrath
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --
RobertG ♬
talk
08:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Alister McGrath (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Individuals do not need their own categories, since whatever information is contained in the navigation of the category should already be in the individual's article. Delete —
coelacan
talk —
05:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Richard Dawkins
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --
RobertG ♬
talk
08:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Richard Dawkins (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
I believe I've seen a consensus that individuals do not need their own categories, since whatever information is contained in the navigation of the category should already be in the individual's article. Delete. —
coelacan
talk —
05:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - I don't believe the consensus is 100% against eponymous categories. It depends on how many related articles and subcats there are. In this case there is only one subcat and two articles and the articles are interlinked so this one can go.
Otto4711
06:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per above.
Doczilla
07:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Metamagician3000
08:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - The contents of this category are
Richard Dawkins, an article on an organization named after him, and a subcategory for his books. The books do need a subcategory. However, a parent category for other Dawkins articles is not needed.
Dr. Submillimeter
10:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per all of the above. --
Merzul
10:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I agree with Otto4711 that there are cases in which a eponymous cat is prudent. However, this is not one of those cases. His books are well covered in the "books by" cat and the other two articles can also be easily categorized without this epon. cat.
youngamerican (
ahoy hoy)
13:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete As per above and the Alister McGrath cfd above, readers almost certainly would use the main article first anyway and have little need to visit the category for navigation. As Otto correctly mentions above, this isn't a 100% hard and fast rule against eponymous categories for people, but it's a very strong rule of thumb.
Dugwiki
18:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete A substantial number of directly connected sub-categories/articles are required to justify an eponymous category.
-
Xdamr
talk
19:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Withdrawn --
Prove It
(talk)
17:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Merge into
Category:People from Rome, see also a
related nomination. Unlike
Naples and
Genoa, there isn't a Province of Rome. --
Prove It
(talk)
05:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Criticisms of Fundamentalism
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --
RobertG ♬
talk
08:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Criticisms of Fundamentalism (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Hopelessly vague and/or overbroad. Criticism of Christian fundamentalism and Hindu fundamentalism in one place? That's what this category would be, if anyone but its creator were using it. Those "fundamentalisms" are unrelated. The category verges on indiscriminate. Delete. —
coelacan
talk —
05:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Criticisms of critics of religion
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. --
RobertG ♬
talk
08:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Criticisms of critics of religion (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
One of
User:Chsbcgs's interesting category creations, but too obscure to be helpful. It's such a stretch to put anything in here that it's inherently
WP:OR, but besides that it's just not a useful category for Wikipedia. Delete.—
coelacan
talk —
04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete this nonsense.
Doczilla
07:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - getting too tenuous and convoluted to be useful.
Metamagician3000
08:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Apologetics, or "response to criticism of religion" would make sense, but criticism of critics would almost imply that the criticism has to be directed against the person, perhaps
The Dawkins Delusion? fits in here, but very little else. --
Merzul
10:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete before we find ourseves facing Category:Criticisms of critics of critics of religion. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
13:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per the BrownHairedGirl...took the words right out of my mouth.--
William Thweatt
Talk |
Contribs
02:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
ReeseM
14:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete very POV pushing category--
Sefringle
21:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Riddick franchise
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to
Category:The Chronicles of Riddick.--
Mike Selinker
17:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Propose renaming
Category:Riddick franchise to
Category:The Chronicles of Riddick
- Nominator's Rationale: Rename, The series is called "The Chronices of Riddick",
Pitch Black was renamed to match it, so it logically follows that the category should be so named as well.
Malla
nox
02:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. We've been through this one before (most recently
[1]). A DVD release in which Pitch Black is called The Chronicles of Riddick: Pitch Black does not change its theatrical history, its listing at Box Office Mojo, its name under copyright, or its name on the DVD in my cabinet any more than something like Platinum Edition 10th Anniversary Groundhog Day changes that movie's name.
Doczilla
07:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - the proposed rename was rejected a month ago and there is no new or compelling evidence offered in this nomination to convince me that the decision of the last CFD was in error.
Otto4711
13:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Ok, I wasn't aware of the previous discussion. However, the existence of
The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, and
The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury strongly suggest this is the intended title of the "franchise", which incidently is a word that in this context seems strange to English ears. I still assert that the category name should be changed.
Malla
nox
01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Support - I was the one who sugggested the category for renaming a month ago as mentioned above. I too orginally felt it should be renamed to "The Chroinicles of Riddick", however only two people posted a reply. One person wanted no change because the film "is not star wars", the other suggested "Riddick franchise" as a compromise. In fact, it was the same two people who have jsut commented now. I agreed to "Riddick franchise" if no consensus was met. No one else commented so thats what happened. So I vote the categoery be renamed "The Chronicles of Riddick". For one thing,
The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, and
The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Fury do support this naming convention and another Pitch Black was renamed in all subsequent DVD releases to follow suit. If you look at the
Pitch Black article, there is an offical DVD website which clearly calls the film "The Chronicles of Riddick: Pitch Black" linked.(01:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC))
- Support marketting from the studios have rebranded Pitch Black to match the other two entries in the Riddick trilogy, and people know it as such.
70.51.8.30
05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename - Pitch Black is as much a Chronicles of Riddick movie as
Donkey Kong is a Mario game.
Cosmetor
03:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Rename per nom. Whatever the rights and wrongs it seems to be fairly settled that the studio now wishes to rebrand Pitch Black to match with the others. That being the case I don't see why we should decline to follow them, if for no other reason than to get rid of 'franchise'—an odd-sounding word this context.
-
Xdamr
talk
14:47, 6 March 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.