Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 19 January 21 >

January 20[edit]

Category:Islam critical websites[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islam critical websites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category is inherently POV as it's impossible to say what is an Islam-critical website (is a website that comments on extremism critical of Islam? Is a website that criticses only Wahabbism Islam-critical. It also only has one article in it despite being six months old.Nssdfdsfds 23:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete yes, hopeless POV in practice DGG 03:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Honbicot 11:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. "Islam critical" is a uselessly broad term which could include everything from a reformist islamic site to virulent islamophobia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above plus questionable grammar. David Kernow (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons already stated.--Per Abrahamsen 14:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - criteria is too undefinable. Gronky 22:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see nothing mentioned above that qualifies as being against wikipedia policies. It is not POV. The category, while it currently has few articles is not POV. There is no POV in saying website x is a critical website.--Sefringle 07:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.
  • Delete per nom. ITAQALLAH 11:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear imposition of POV. Arguments stated above articulate reasons for deleting this article very well. -- Aylahs (talk) 14:44, 28 January 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:Secret Six members[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Secret Six members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, As per precedeont for superhero/villain teams. List already exists. J Greb 18:50, 20 January 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:Missionaries to India[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 14:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Missionaries to India to Category:Christian missionaries in India
  • Rename, Add "Christian" because all articles in the category relate to Chrisian missionaries (this also allows more logical placement in category tree). Replace "to" with "in" because not all missionaries in a country are from outside that country. (see also discussion at Category talk:Missionaries). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for organizational purposes. Dr. Submillimeter 20:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as being what was intended.DGG 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 19:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. 146.186.44.199 19:47, 26 January 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:Missionaries in China[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Renamed per nom, thank you. --Cyde Weys 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Missionaries in China to Category:Christian missionaries in China
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:Missionaries in Japan[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 14:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Missionaries in Japan to Category:Christian missionaries in Japan
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:Alumni Munson Institute of American Maritime Studies[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedied. the wub "?!" 14:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this isn't a category, it's just a list of three names, none of which have articles, no members except for the school itself. -- Prove It (talk) 16:59, 20 January 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:Fauna of Gujarat[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fauna of Gujarat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Category is nearly empty as is, and the fauna of Gujarat does not seem distinct enough from that of India to warrant a separate category. Lesnail 16:58, 20 January 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:Amusement parks in Oceania[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favor of Category:Amusement parks by country, for man made things, countries just make more sense. -- Prove It (talk) 16:41, 20 January 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:Library and information science → Category:Library science[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. >Radiant< 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Library science. Related but distinct subjects. There are already separate articles on library science and information science. Category:Information science already exists. Most articles currently in this category properly belong in Category:Library science, a few might need to be placed in/moved to Category:Information science. —Ruud 16:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. As a librarian, I can attest that "Library and information science" is the current term for our profession and the education that pertains to it, as encompassing the interdisciplinary aspect of our work. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on similar grounds to Pegship - Comment: (I'm a librarian/info law atty). Most formerly-library schools style themselves as library & information schools or some variant thereof; and produce practitioners beyond libraries. There is significant overlap. But, the structure of info science and library/info sci should be examined to make sure there is a sensible structure and naming, with proposals if necessary to rationalize the structure; I'm not a fan of names which read to the layperson as overlapping. --lquilter 19:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. I am a librarian as well, and I strongly oppose this change for the exact reasons cited by Pegship. ChartreuseLight 20:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with Lquilter's analysis, but come to the opposite conclusion. These terms are used in a confusing way: Library science (also known as Librarianship) is of course the older, dating back to the 19th century; Information science, arose after WW II, and consisted of the applications of operations research and other mathematical techniques, and --gradually--many of the concepts of computer science. In the effort to sound more rigorous, Library schools began calling themselves schools of library and information science, but there never was any distinction between the people who called themselves "Library and information science" and "Library science". Meanwhile, Information science continued to strengthen as a discipline, and has becomes essentially a separate profession. As a further development, many library schools now call themselves schools of information science, known as "I-schools" and teach librarianship without saying so (in order to avoid the popular image of librarians as very low-grade professionals). This terminology is --not surprisingly--confusing to the outsiders. I see no way of making terms other people do consistent or rational (especially when distinctions arise because of image problems or academic fashion). We will not change the structure of the subject or its terminology. The rise of "Communication Science(s)" as a related or alternative subject will confuse things further. As a practical measure in order to keep things straight in WP I think we need the two distinct categories, Library Science and Information Science, and an article explaining the various meanings. The use of the combined term as a category is hopeless because of the part we cannot change -- the meaning of Information Science as a related profession of its own, which I think is more related to the study of Probability than of Librarianship.
Having simplified this category name, we can then adjust the articles. I have avoided working on some of the articles because of this very problem--that there is no clear way to demarcate. I am a librarian myself, without any personal sense of image problem, though I tend to be one of the more mathematically inclined; the schools I have attended and taught at have called themselves various things at different times, without changing their character much. I know some information science, as I know something about computers and management and education and publishing--all separate but related subjects. Much as I respect Pegship, I do not agree that we are one profession, for I known many information scientists without the least idea of what happens in libraries, even as a patron. I also respect Lquilter's and ChartruseLight, but their hope for rationalizing the field is not very likely. DGG 03:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, DGG, and thank you for your comments on my talk page, Ruud. I'm currently an academic librarian, formerly a public librarian, and as adept with new technology as with old. I think I can live with a separation as long as it is made clear that librarianship is not a lesser, obsolete clerical field, but both the precursor and harmonious relative of what most people consider "information (i.e. electronic information) science". And I really want to keep the portal name and the stub template as is; the stub template wording distinguishes the discipline from the physical buildings, and the portal name...well, it just sounds elegant. My 2¢ - Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub and portal continued on your talk page. I of course totally agree, that the word librarian needs exaltation rather than dismissal, and we should edit articles accordingly DGG 05:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find myself swayed by DGG's points: LIS is probably one of the many instances in which the trade / professional terminology would be confusing to a general audience. I changed my vote above to a comment, and would like to add that See also links on the category pages, with brief descriptions of the categories, would be helpful. --lquilter 17:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per distinction between information science and information science applied in libraries (and any librarianship that doesn't involve information...?); suggest categories Information science and Library science feature links to each other. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: having just graduated from an "I-School" which taught both information & library science :) -- part of the confusion is the disciplines are teaching related or very similar subjects, but under different names. It's clear that library science and information science have two separate histories and cover different things, but part of the impetus for teaching them together is not just that "library science" has a worse image, but also because they're very similar. Take categorizing information. In library science, traditionally, this has been called cataloging, indexing, classification, and so on. In information science, you're likely to find people talking about website taxonomies, keyword tagging, and classification. Something like "classification" can mean half a dozen things, as well, depending on what you're doing and what tools you're using to do it with. In my experience, it's not entirely true that "information science" is a euphemism for computers while "library science" is a euphemism for books and dust. The two fields are really doing the same thing, with slightly different applications and techniques and different names. Thus, if we split up the category there will be articles that I feel will need to be in both categories, like indexing. The distinction is present, but is confusing to outsiders (not to mention to people in the field), and the fields are also very closely aligned. -- phoebe (brassratgirl) /(talk) 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for the reasons mentioned by both Pegship and phoebe. From a maintenance perspective, it seems to me that the overlap between the two categories would be so high that it would be counterproductive to split the articles. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Boredoms related groups[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete, purpose not clear from the name leading to misunderstandings, very unusual categorization for bands, and OC guideline trumps ILIKEIT. >Radiant< 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to subjective inclusion criteria, what exactly does it mean to be Boredoms related. I don't think it makes sense to make categories for music groups based on how they are somehow related to other musical groups. -- Prove It (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Twelfth Man[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:The Twelfth Man albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Norse sagas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Norse sagas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. A saga is by definition a Norse one. Category:Sagas is enough. Sigo 15:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Sigo. There is no need for two separate levels Norse sagas and Sagas. The sagas are all Norse. --Barend 16:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and undo the changes after the vote.. This was just discussed here. The vote was a reverse merge since there are other sagas. If you read the articles and Saga (disambiguation), Icelanders' sagas do not appear to be considered as Norse sagas so should not be included there. Also from the various articles these are referred to as Norse sagas and not sagas so that would appear to be the more correct term. Likewise List of sagas contains many sagas that are not Norse. The previous decision should be left standing. Norse sagas should be returned to Category:Norse sagas. Vegaswikian 19:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brilliant demonstration. Category:Sagas will remain Category:Norse sagas. Similarly, the article France will soon be renamed French France...
  • "The vote was a reverse merge". Did anybody mention on the talk page there was a vote, so that people who know what a saga is could give their opinion? I don't think so.
  • "Icelanders' sagas do not appear to be considered as Norse sagas". Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.
  • "Likewise List of sagas contains many sagas that are not Norse." The author of the article doesn't even give a definition of what he thinks a saga is...
Sigo 21:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To a layperson like me your analogy with moving France to French France makes as much sense moving Books to German books, because bookprinting was invented there? —Ruud 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the definition and the contents of the article omitted a major topic, there is a simple fix. Update the article. Pointing out that what you read on wikipedia, "Icelanders' sagas do not appear to be considered as Norse sagas", is wrong seems odd. If you as an editor know that it is in error, why didn't you fix it? Also, the The definition of saga is not restricted to Norse ones. Vegaswikian 03:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems to be a disambiguation issue. What about renaming this to Saga (literature) instead? —Ruud 23:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That could work since since there are several types. But not all sagas are literature. So you would need more then one dabed category, or some distinction for the major types of categories. This would all be sub categories under Category:Sagas, right? Vegaswikian 03:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can anyone explain if there is a difference between Category:Icelanders' sagas and Category:Sagas of Iceland? If not, these should be merged, but I'm not sure which way. Vegaswikian 08:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unfortunately the saga overview articles we have now are quite poor so I appreciate that for the layperson the answer here is not obvious but Sigo is really absolutely right. In academic usage the only sagas are Norse sagas. Haukur 16:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are saying that all of the dictionaries are wrong and academic usage in one part of the world should set the standard on wikipedia? If so that sounds like another case of, if the Americans use it, delete it. Vegaswikian 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've got nothing against popular usage but in this case it's too broad and vague to use as the basis of a category definition as you've nicely demonstrated with List of sagas. Haukur 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the support. Saga is used in many ways. So your statement is really supporting the need for multiple sub categories to support the different types of sagas. I'm just not sure what those categories should be. Maybe the main sub categories under sagas should be Category:Sagas (literature) and Category:Sagas (film). That would mean the discussion on Category:Sagas of Iceland should be a merge into Category:Sagas (literature) rather then into Category:Sagas or just deleting. Vegaswikian 00:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Category:Sagas (literature) and Category:Sagas (film)? Do we really need them? You should have a look at this and that. Sigo 11:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • In that context, a saga is probably always a sequel, but not all sequels are sagas. This is really down to a simple point. Are Norse sagas, the only sagas? Since all of the dictionary definitions say that there are others, then the position that the Norse sagas are the only ones is not correct. Vegaswikian 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is indeed down to a simple point. Are Norse sagas the only sagas that can be precisely defined? I think they are. You wrote that some sequels were sagas, but how do you know that some of them are, and some are not? I don’t say there’s only one definition of the word saga, I merely think that there’s only one that can be useful as a category on Wikipedia. Sigo 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support by appeal to authority of Haukur. —Ruud 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is this really a good idea? According to wiktionary: [1], the word saga is ambiguous and can mean any story. I've heard the word used often for contemporary stories, meaning something like epic, and I had no idea it referred to Norse stories. 146.186.44.199 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comment above. If it can mean any story, then it's no use creating a category for sagas that aren't Norse ones, because it's too vague. Sigo 16:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was such a category called Category:Sagas, if it needed abother sub cat then it could have been created. Doing so now will require more work. This push to eliminate everything not Norse will only lead to future confusion. Vague is very different from non-encyclopedic. Vegaswikian 22:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Result: 5 regisered people support deletion, one is against. So? Sigo 15:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category: People from Bolton, Massachusetts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category not populated, can merge into People from Worcester County, Massachusetts Pmeleski 15:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Writing systems without Word Boundaries[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy rename. David Kernow (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least Rename to Category:Writing systems without word boundaries. -- Prove It (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rename. Xiner (talk, email) 15:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per Wikipedia title standards. Doczilla 22:24, 20 January 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:Football clubs in Derry[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. >Radiant< 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Northern Irish football clubs (current population 49), or Keep. -- Prove It (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The cat is well populated. Xiner (talk, email) 15:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could go either way ... if one is interested in football clubs in Northern Ireland, they have to look at two cats instead of one. If they are interested in stuff particularly in the Derry area, then it's good. -- Prove It (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Xiner. The category is reasonably well-populated, and Derry is the second-largest city in Northern Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel that the reasonably large number of clubs in existence within the city warrants a category of its own. There are further clubs playing in the city that could still be added to this category. Danny InvincibleTalk|Edits 02:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New York Rap[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Merging. Closing early since the consensus is clear. WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:New York Rappers, soon to be Category:New York rappers. -- Prove It (talk) 14:33, 20 January 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:Long Island rappers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:New York Rappers, soon to be Category:New York rappers. -- Prove It (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Brooklyn Rappers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. >Radiant< 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:New York Rappers, soon to be Category:New York rappers. -- Prove It (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Linux software[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete this one, people who want a specialized one are welcome to write it. >Radiant< 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Linux software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Most of the software listed is merely portable software that happens to run on Linux, a lot of it predates Linux. It runs on zillions of operating systems. If the category is not deleted, it should be either broadened to Unix/POSIX software (so each piece of portable software won't be in a zillions categories), or narrowed to include only software specifically targeted to Linux. Per Abrahamsen 10:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Specialize per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I like the idea of specializing, but what is the proposed category name? Linux-original software? --lquilter 17:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could keep the same name, and just write add the specialization in the category description.--Per Abrahamsen 19:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we do, we should standardize & apply solution not just to Linux but to whole Category:Software by operating system. Each of the OS and the SBOS supercat should have a standard template that says something like "This category is for software that is original to the operating system. Software ported to the operating system should not be included." Maybe Category:Software by operating system should be renamed to Category:Software by original operating system. Of course that leaves "Category:Single-platform software" out in the cold. Hmm. --lquilter 01:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the category's boundaries are too undefinable. Gronky 21:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Computer and video game censorship and ratings[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename >Radiant< 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Computer and video game censorship and ratings to Category:Computer and video game censorship
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:Arthur Loves Plastic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Arthur Loves Plastic albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Military theme songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 14:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Military theme songs to Category:Songs about the military
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:Victory songs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Victory songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Seems redundant to Cat:Patriotic songs and Cat:Sporting songs, and with those present I'm not even sure what this is for; Sweet Victory is completely incomprehensible, but already indicates 'songs with 'victory' in the title' starting to creep in. Unint 02:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative Keep I can see some merit in this category—songs composed in celebration of victories in war/battles etc; clearly more of a historical phenomenon rather than contemporary, but nevertheless notable. It certainly seems to me to be a categorisable attribute, although the category is very much under-utilised at present.
Xdamrtalk 03:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any song anyone thinks is a victory song could be added to this cat. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Patriotic & sporting wouldn't cover it; there are lots of types of victories -- electoral, political, union/labor, and not all military victories would raise patriotism -- religious warfare, international warfare, civil warfare victory songs are not really the same as "patriotic". I think I'm leaning towards keep at this point; let the category grow & see what happens to it. (We should have an intermediate tag that says something like, "This purpose & value of this category has yet to find consensus; it will be maintained for "X" period of time and then reviewed unless consensus develops in the meantime." Then we could tag this, put it in a month-based category for re-review, and look at how it has been used in the meantime.) --lquilter 02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment FWIW, it's had a whole year already, and it is not clear where we would find people interested in populating it. I have used {{Popcat}} for other categories in the past, to no avail. –Unint 04:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whether or not a song is a "victory song" is ill-defined and subjective. Dr. Submillimeter 09:24, 29 January 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:Songs with different titles[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs with different titles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Apparently for songs that had their titles changed, at some point, for any reason. Except it seems people have also been including songs with parenthetical titles, for whatever reason. Trivial characteristic and a title up for interpretation; not a good combination. Unint 01:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stupid but harmless. Wasted Time R 03:46, 20 January 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:Advertising mascot songs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Advertising mascot songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. First, there is no such thing as a song that is also a mascot. Second, there are far too many popular songs that were used ephemerally used for advertising campaigns, and there's no point in glorifying the fact that Circuit City licensed a song by The Cars in their TV commercials for a little while.

Also, I get the feeling you're familiar with this "Nintendude" guy... Unint 01:49, 20 January 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:Incomplete Sydney suburbs[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Incomplete Sydney suburbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, largely superseded by the WP:1.0 assessment scheme. Another point of concern is that the category is used within article space, introducing unencyclopedic categorisation to many Sydney-related articles. -- Longhair\talk 01:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Misleading. Xiner (talk, email) 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unclear and unnecessary category. Doczilla 22:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant.--cj | talk 15:46, 24 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_20&oldid=1138388094"