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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - completing malformed nomination by
User:Tenebrae. Tenebrae gave no deletion rationale, but I concur with deletion. "Atomic Age of Comic Books" is not in wide usage and where it is used there is disagreement as to what would fall under this classification.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk)
01:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)reply
My apologies; I sometimes find the template directions hard to follow. I give my deletion rationale
here, under "'Atomic Age of Comics' is not a recognized era". --
Tenebrae (
talk)
18:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Foo Army
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.
Comments The last 4 can all be speedily deleted soon (as empty) as their articles are succumbing at afd. The first one is quite different and has several subcats; and so deletion seems undesirable.
Occuli (
talk)
01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete- part of an elaborate walled garden of Heroscape cruft. The articles that populate them are going to be, rightly, deleted at AfD so there's no need for them to hang around.
ReykYO!06:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Republican Liberty Caucus members
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.
Keep. Unlike the below nomination, this is a defining characteristic of a politician. The RLC is one of the major, usually mutually-exclusive, factions within the Republican Party (along with the
Republican Study Committee and the
Republican Main Street Partnership). Since the distinction between these groups is well-defined, and they are usually mutually-exclusive, it is a defining characteristic of why a politician is notable: his or her politics. As such, it is defining of the politician him or herself.
Bastin 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it would be categorisation by organisational affiliation. Categorisation by beliefs is currently discouraged because it is often a way for people to push POV by incorporating categories without proper references - whilst categories don't allow the nuances and explanations that the prose allows, and are thus good mechanisms to push a POV. This, because of the hard-and-fast, publicly-defined membership, is not the same.
Bastin 00:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Far more fluid? I wasn't aware that many people had moved from the RLC to the Main Street Partnership recently.
Bastin 00:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me know when the RLC celebrates its 150th anniversary, as the Republican Party recently did. The Liberty Caucus will probably be defunct in another decade or two. And yes, joining/changing a caucus is far more common than a politician changing a party.
Good Ol’factory(talk)09:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Liberty Caucus members
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - one of any number of political caucuses in Congress. Membership doesn't seem to be particularly defining of its members and this appears to be one of only two such categories.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk)
22:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Attendance of meetings is not defining. This is a very different case to the above.
Bastin 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:ATP Volvo International
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The tournament was known as the 'Volvo International', which is indeed what the corresponding article is named -
Volvo International - there is no need to add 'ATP', which indicates the tour (
ATP Tour). The present category name is moreover misleading as the Volvo International was for much of its existence was not part of the ATP Tour
Mayumashu (
talk)
21:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Shannon County, South Dakota
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Chill-out drinks
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.
Nominator's rationale: Slang term; these drinks don't have official names and there's little chance for expansion. All are already categorized as soft drinks. Given that there's no official name for these reverse-energy-drinks, I think they should be decategorized until there's a true name for them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer)17:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Anti-energy drinks, which is not slangy and is the primary term used in the article
Energy drink. Having a long history of editing (or rather, largely reverting vandalism in) the article
Purple drank (where people have sometimes tried to insert advertisements for new drinks of this type), I see a continuing need for a category for these drinks. --
Orlady (
talk)
19:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kipling stories with supernatural elements
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge - artificial and overly broad. Subject to definitional difficulties. Do the Jungle Book stories or the Just So stories contain "supernatural elements" because of the talking animals?
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk)
17:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Post-Soviet Russia
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.
I am not a fan of the proposed name (I think it's just plain ugly), but since I am unable to come up with anything better, since it does fit along the lines of other similar cats (like the US mentioned), and since I think that the current name is a very poor choice due to its ambiguous and overly broad scope, I support this nomination nevertheless.—
Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (
yo?); August 16, 2010; 15:43 (UTC)
Support. I think the years are a more clear and objective way to separate. The "Post-Soviet Russia" characterisation won't last forever anyway. Modern-day France is not called "Post-Napoleonic France" either.
Offliner (
talk)
12:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Metropolitan boroughs established in 1974
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Anatolian states in middle ages
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.
Nominator's rationale: Correct English, and since this is about a geographic region, it is more precise to speak of "states in Anatolia", especially since many of these were not confined to Anatolia.
Constantine ✍ 11:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Redirect to already existing category,
States in medieval Anatolia.
Constantine ✍ 23:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose As the creator of the category, I don’t see any difference between Anatolian states and states in Anatolia. So why do I object ? As a rule of thumb, the names should be left untouched unless a there is a solid reason to rename. (ıncorrect spelling, irrevelant proper name etc.) To change names because of a trivial reason is nothing but a loss of energy and time. (These are just what I am losing at the moment) As for the reason “not confined to Anatolia”, well sincerely I don’t see how the non confined states are included in the category by renaming.
Nedim Ardoğa (
talk)
08:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, "Anatolian state" does convey the image of a state primarily centered in Anatolia. Yet the category already includes many states that extended far beyond it, indeed, states whose center of power was not in Anatolia. And even if this reason appears trivial, "in middle ages" is not correct English, and a rename is in order... In future, please read the rationale more carefully before dismissing such poposals. Regards,
Constantine ✍ 16:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lennon/McCartney songs not originally released by The Beatles
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.
comment. The first idea (convert to a new article) already exists as
Lennon/McCartney#Non-Beatles_songs. It is not precisely the same as "not originally released by The Beatles" (see below) but the difference is manageable. No action necessary here. The question is not "where should it go" but "is the category necessary, in first place". Weak oppose to the rationale behind your second proposal: an article on an album does not replace a category (different, narrower criteria). For example,
I Call Your Name is both a "giveaway song", and a Beatles song (I suspect that most listeners don't know the original Billy Kramer version) - it was not included in
The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away for a good reason.
East of Borschov05:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. Whatever is decided it should never be merged to
The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away. A songwriter cannot legally or morally 'give' away a song. The giving away of songs is fancruft terminology used by people who don't have the first inkling of how the music business works. That article should be, at least, renamed immediately. And there's incorrect capitalization of the article too.
Richhoncho (
talk)
01:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Have you seen the article? It's the name of an album. Cannot comment on capitalization - "Gave Away" is capitalized on the front cover, other words are in all-caps. What would you suggest, all-caps in the title?
East of Borschov10:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Quite, East of Borschov, I have been caught with my eyes closed or some similar expression. However, even more reason it should not be merged with an album.
Richhoncho (
talk)
19:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Las Vegas Stars players
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Kipling stories with Strickland
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.
I am saddened (still) by what I see as an unnecessarily limiting by the wikipedia community of how to deal with articles (and categories) on literary topics. The study of literature (and other humanities subjects) is not of the same nature as that of most scientific and technological subjects, in which many facts are certain, unchallengeable, and unchanging. Literature, like other arts, has of its nature, a strong subjective element. The expert practitioner is one who learns to form a judgement that in broad outlines falls within recognizable limits and bounds of the subject - but is not expected to be identical with that of any other expert practitioner of the subject. It is to this end that I proposed so many categories for Kipling's stories. Of teh important ones, in my judgement - those dealing with K's attitudes to race/religion etc - each was intended to group some of the material that would provide evidence for those seeking to establish what Kipling's views were on the relevant topic. These expanded into stories involving particular topics, such as Europeans in India, etc. Most of those categories have already been deleted, despite my mild protests (I am not a strong member of teh community). I still think it was methodologically unsound to delete them - but they've gone. There's no reason why Strickland (a minor outcrop of 'Europeans in India') should not follow. I have been so discouraged by the fact that the constraints imposed on my Kipling project that it has fallen into disuse. I am devoting my efforts to other work.
MacAuslan (
talk)
12:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I would like nevertheless to flag up a real concern about how arts are treated in wikipedia.
P.S. Perhaps I will write the page on "this Strickland character", who is of interest mostly as an expression of some of K's responses to India and the Anglo-Indian Raj, this week, if there is any sign that my concerns might be addressed. I have two hesitations: 1) that I don't have much time; and 2) that I am not really aware about how to begin such an argument of such (potentially) fundamental importance to an encyclopedia.
MacAuslan (
talk)
12:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Upmerge I have some sympathy with what you say, but as it is the category only contains one story, and the coillection in which that story appears, so it is pretty useless. There is no article on the character -
Strickland does not go where you probably think it does. Why not do that instead?
Johnbod (
talk)
13:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:PAGES WITH INCORRECT FORMATTING TEMPLATES USE
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American Episcopalian architects
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Marti Pellow
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Pretty substantial overcategorisation, I'd say. If necessary a template could link these articles far more effectively.
Grutness...wha?00:31, 16 August 2010 (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.