Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 31 January 2 >

January 1[edit]

Category:Hawaii Warriors women's basketball coaches[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hawaii Warriors women's basketball coaches to Category:Hawaii Rainbow Wahine basketball coaches
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The correct nickname for all women's athletic programs at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa is Rainbow Wahine. Dale Arnett (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:VCU Rams women's basketball coaches[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:VCU Rams women's basketball coaches to Category:Virginia Commonwealth Rams women's basketball coaches
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Corresponding category for men's coaches is at Category:Virginia Commonwealth Rams men's basketball coaches, and the category for men's players uses "Virginia Commonwealth" as well. Dale Arnett (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Colgate Red Raiders ice hockey players[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Colgate Red Raiders ice hockey players to Category:Colgate Raiders ice hockey players
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Colgate dropped "Red" from its athletic nickname in 2001. Dale Arnett (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Batman film series[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete and salt. Kbdank71 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Batman film series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, possibly speedy as a recreation of deleted categories. As per previous, category is being used to lump fictional characters, films and actors by franchise/use. J Greb (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt as persistent re-creation of deleted material. Otto4711 (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt recreation. Doczilla (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt It is a re-creation of deleted category. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and nuke from orbit. It's the only way to be sure this sock doesn't do this YET again. ThuranX (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Reboot Batman series[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reboot Batman series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete unnecessary category that to some degree involves POV/OR merely by giving it a name. I had to remove the category from three articles per WP:OC for performance by performance violation and from two characters' articles (Batman and Joker (comics) because of strong precedent against categorizing a comic book character by every single cartoon, TV show, movie, card game, or other medium in which the character has appeared. That leaves only two articles, at least one of which should probably be deleted and redirect to Batman Begins. Doczilla (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Okay, now the category has only one article because the cat's creator removed the other one. Doczilla (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per standing precedents. - J Greb (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per suspected sock creator known for such categories, and and per precedent. ThuranX (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Finnish female models[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 17:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Finnish female models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is useless. With the sole exception of Patrik Antonius, all articles in the parent category Category:Finnish models are female. JIP
  • Merge to Category:Finnish models - this is overcategorization by sex. Categorization on the basis of sex is to be avoided unless the sex of the person being so categorized bears a specific relationship to the topic. The default assumption in English is that "model" when applied to a person means "female model." Categorizing female models on the basis of sex is no different from categorizing female actors on the basis of sex and we do not so categorize female actors. This and all other female model categories should be merged to their corresponding models by nationality parent. Otto4711 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I agree that "model" usually means "female model". This is in direct contradiction with the category structure, which leads one to think "model" means "male model" (when female models are singled out as being female). If the category was Category:Finnish male models, I'd be more tolerant, but no such category exists. JIP | Talk 17:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a Category:Male models, but it doesn't yet have a Finnish sub-category, which it should have. I would create the category now, but when I did that in previous CfD there were squawks about it disrupting the process, so I'll create it once this CfD closes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason the category structure looks odd is because of the bizarre insistence in this case, as opposed to any number of other cases, that a somewhat legitimate sexed category structure ("male models") be counterbalanced by a category structure for the other sex when such a counterbalencing structure is in no way required or necessary. Otto4711 (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The female models categories are not somehow a counterbalance to anything: they exist because of the unique significance of the female models, as per the references below and per WP:CATGRS's key test. This is similar to the situation that exists with singers, another rigidly gendered occupation, where we have Category:Male singers and Category:Female singers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Modelling is a completely gendered profession, and female models have a huge cultural significance which male models do not have. As discussed at CFD Nov 20 (and I don't intend to repeat all the arguments), it is quite possible to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article of Female models, so this category meets the key test of WP:CATGRS. I am astonished that anyone would argue that modelling is not a career in which gender "bears a specific relationship to the topic"; if Elle Macpherson is fired from a photoshoot, they won't hire a man to be photographed wearing the frocks. Deleting the female model categories would also have a bizarre effect on the category tree, because there would then be no place for models under Category:Women by occupation. It would be daft for a profession which is so heavily associated with women not to have a place in that category tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no place in Category:Women by occupation for Female actors and we somehow are managing to limp along as a project without it. If Halle Berry were fired from a role as, say, a Bond girl, Denzel Washington is not going to be hired to wear her bikini (as hot an image as that may be). A substantial and encyclopedic article could be written on the topic of "Actresses" but Actress is a redirect to Actor and, again, no Category:Actresses or Category:Female actors. There is no difference from a categorization standpoint between Female models and Female actors and nothing's been offered in this discussion or in the previous discussion of the parent Category:Female models (which was tainted by the creation, while it was in progress, of a number of these female model by nationality sub-categories) which refutes that. Otto4711 (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am discussing the category in terms of CATGRS and I find it daft, when 999 out of a thousand people when considering the word "model" are going to think of females, to think that it's necessary to split "female models" out from "models." I have never in 40 years of life heard a model, when asked her occupation, say "I am a female model." It makes some small amount of sense to have male models categories because "male model" is not the norm. But I would rather see all of the models by sex categories merged back into the parent non-sexed "models" category than to have a ridiculous and redundant "female models" category, and especially a triple-intersection category by sex, nationality and occupation. I once again note that CATGRS in no way requires any category of any sort. Otto4711 (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Otto, of course a female doesn't need to say "I'm a female model", because no-one to whom she is talking is going to be in any doubt. For exactly the same reason, Margaret Thatcher was not in the habit of saying "I'm a female politician". The same goes for Category:Living people — when did you last hear a public figure saying "I'm a living person"? But it's still an important characteristic, and we have a category for it.
    Calling something "ridiculous" may be a good way of expressing your feelings, but it is not a reason for deletion. Since you say you are willing to consider things according to WP:CATGRS, let's have a look at it. CATGRS says "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?" and "Your personal feelings should not enter into the matter — if a category meets the criteria defined above, then it is permitted, and if the category does not meet the criteria, then it is not permitted. This is the only way in which the myriad points of view on the matter can realistically be reconciled into a relatively neutral position."
    So, the issue is simply whether a valid, encyclopedic head article can be written on the subject of "Female models". If you disagree with that proposition, please say so, and I can start listing some of the references which could be use to create that head article. But unless you disgree on that point, then the guideline is clear that there are no grounds to delete the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh please. First off, you know as well as I do that Category:Living persons is maintained for WP:BLP and legal concerns as much as whether or not being alive is defining. And thank you for conceding that it is obvious that female models are simply identified in so many instances as "models." Contrast that with male models, who even today are often if not usually identified as "male models" despite its generally being obvious that they are male. And whether or not an encyclopedic article can be written on the specific topic "female model" the point still stands that CATGRS does not require that every such article have its own category. Otto4711 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto, BLP reasons are not the only purpose of Category:Living persons, but as to the rest, you are sidestepping all the issues. The crucial point remains that you still appear not to have WP:CATGRS, so let me spell out the key point again: "if a category meets the criteria defined above, then it is permitted". So, let's try again: do you agree or disagree that a valid, encyclopedic head article can be written on the subject of "Female models"? That's the test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said that BLP concerns were the only reason for Cat:Living people. Despite your accusation of side-stepping, I have addressed the CATGRS argument already. Otto4711 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Otto, but you haven't addressed the addressed CATGRS test, so let me repeat it: "if a category meets the criteria defined above, then it is permitted". So, let's try again: do you agree or disagree that a valid, encyclopedic head article can be written on the subject of "Female models"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ask the same question a few more times that I've already ansered, see if you get a different response. It's fun! Otto4711 (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asking it again in the hope of getting an answer for the first time. Looks like that is not going to happen, which is a pity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I make no case for recreating a female actors category as I believe such a categorization scheme would be a foolish waste of time and resources. Otto4711 (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Female and male models are not interchangeable. If articles are in the wrong category, then fix them. Get over the 'delete everything' campaign; improve WP by working to put articles in their categories. Hmains (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one appears to be on a "'delete everything' campaign" and your basing your opinion on a false belief that such a campaign exists demonstrates both a lack of assumption of good faith on the part of the nominator and those who support the nomination as well as a failure to address the substantive issues of the nomination. "Keep it because I don't like what I think you're doing" is, in the absence of clear and present bad faith, an extremely poor argument. Nor is the nomination in any way based on the idea that male and female models are interchangeable, so I am unable to determine what that has to do with anything. Otto4711 (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is acceptable, I will create that category and fix the articles so that they are all in sex-specific categories. I just hope no one will put the male model category on deletion for only containing one article, which would put us right at the start. JIP | Talk 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Finnish models Overcategorization by sex. I do not believe this is a "rigidly gendered occupation," nor am I even sure what that phrase means. Male and female models appear on the same runways in the same shows, just like male and female actors appear in the same films. Blackworm (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply they may appear on the same catwalks, but unlike scientists or linguists or politicians, they are not interchangeable. If you don't beluve that the profession is rigidly gendered, please explain how likely it is that a female model will be asked to model men's clothes? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The question of a female models category has been discussed twice before at CfD: CfD 2007 January 10, with a result of "keep", and CfD 2007 Nov 20, with a result of "no consensus". I repeat that the test set in WP:CATGRS is "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?", and the guideline also says "Your personal feelings should not enter into the matter — if a category meets the criteria defined above, then it is permitted, and if the category does not meet the criteria, then it is not permitted. This is the only way in which the myriad points of view on the matter can realistically be reconciled into a relatively neutral position." Since the test is whether a valid, encyclopedic head can be written (note can be, not has been writen), here are some comments from the November CfD which demonstrate how it could be written:
    [BHG]: The career of a female model is substantially different from that of a male model, and it is a culturally significant subject which routinely achieves massive coverage in the general press, partucularly in regard to the career options open to women and to effects of female modelling on the female self-image and on societal perception of women. Here are some references which I found in two minutes, simply by scanning existing wikipedia articles: [1], [2], [3]; see also Size zero#Fashion_concept, about the long-running controversy over the effect of modelling on the body-image of women, which has prompted government intervention in some countries; see Naomi Wolf]]'s book The Beauty Myth. That's just a quick start, but I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies, where I'm sure that there are plenty of folks who can provide pages full of references.[/BHG]
    [Lquilter]: Cites I generated from 5 minutes on the Internet that can support a head article on female models: Shut Up and Smile: Supermodels, the Dark Side by Ian Halperin (1999); Black and Beautiful: How Women of Color Changed the Fashion Industry by Barbara Summers (racism within modeling); Model: The Ugly Business of Beautiful Women by Michael Gross (2003) (history of female modeling); Skin Deep: Inside the World of Black Fashion Models by Barbara Summers (1999); "Fierce Pussies and Lesbian Avengers: Dyke Activism Meets Celebrity Culture" Ann Cvetkovich (images of female models merging infiltrating other cultures). If I searched some subscription databases I'm certain I can come up with many on the issue of body image; celebrity culture; racism; history and ties from artist models, pornography, beauty pageants, and other female professions; and many other gendered analyses of the profession.[/Lquilter]
    --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - from the discussions here the Category doesn't seem useless (per original nom) to me. I also believe that as per discussions by BrownHairedGirl and JIP (who originally prompted this discussion) the Category:Finnish male models should be created. Sting_au Talk 02:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a structure, and create the Male counterpart for the same reason. Have Category:Women by nationality and occupation, and for that matter Category:Women by occupation, been discussed as a whole? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:BrownHairedGirl's comments. - Neparis (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:US waste legislation[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:United States waste legislation. Kbdank71 15:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:US waste legislation to Category:United States waste law
Nominator's rationale: Rename. US -> United States. It's general legal issues, not just legislation.—Markles 16:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is better for this category, but there are entire trees of "legislation" -- are you planning to go through all the legislation/statutory law trees? or simply to recat this one into Category:Law by issue? (abandoning Category:Waste legislation and Category:United States federal environmental legislation? Because that's not quite satisfactory either, since, in fact, of the 19 articles in this category, 9 are specific statutes or articles about types of statutes. Frankly I'd prefer we look at all the categories and clean them up and apply a consistent approach, so if this is the first step in a comprehensive plan I'm on board. But there needs to be a plan for dealing with the statutes & case law & regulations & regulators & so on. --Lquilter (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - nope, no bigger plan. I'm often patrolling the legislation categories and I found this one. At first I was just going to change the US to United States. Then I noticed that this clearly wasn't legislation. It should change for now because the name is incorrect - it is not legislation. After that… sure — let's get a better plan going.—Markles 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:United States environmental legislation. The problem with "waste" is that as a legal concept it doesn't mean "rubbish" it usually refers to current possessors not maintaining a long-lived property before it transfers to the future owners. Like a life tenant of a house failing to keep it in good repair during the life tenancy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC) While we have waste talking about rubbish, we have Waste (law) talking about the legal concept I have described, so a category about waste law seems to implicate that usage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Environmental legislation is too broad; it covers air, water, wildlife, endangered species, mining reclamation, leaking underground storage tanks, and a host of other things. Since this is a national category that will include all federal, state, interstate, and local, that's way too big & will need subdivision. Waste management is the common term for recycling, bottle bills, solid waste management, and so on. Waste seems like a reasonable shorthand, but I'm happy to go with waste management. --Lquilter (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 15:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment although there is clear concensus to rename the category, the three recommendations are all for different names. This made closing impossible. Please continue to discuss, and if you can accept one of the already suggested names, specify that one. This will probably be closed as no concensus if this time around it does not come to a common name recommendation. JERRY talk contribs 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename "United States waste legislation" - sorry I wasn't clear before. "United States waste management legislation" is also okay, if it goes that way. --Lquilter (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A rename to Category:United States waste legislation is a valid speedy rename. There does not appear to be any opposition here to that change, so there is no reason for this to be closed as no consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rename to Category:United States waste legislation; no reason to look further for a good name that describes the contents of the catgegory. Hmains (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Flora of the Mojave Desert[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 15:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Flora of the Mojave Desert to Category:Flora of Southwestern United States Category:Desert flora of the Southwestern United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Over categorization. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Flora of the Sonoran Desert and rename something like Category:Desert flora of the Southwestern United States. A small step in the movement away from political or geographic bio-cats to biozone ones, which has long been agreed as desirable, but nothing seems to happen. But why nominate this category, when the "by state" ones are more objectionable? Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I nominated this one since I found it looking for something else. Yes, I know there are flora and fauna concerns, but if we start eliminating some of the cats we are at least moving forward. I still think the upmerge is the better way to go, but if that does not fly, your suggestion would be an improvement. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least it keeps what little by biozone category content we have, rather than removing it; on a quick look many plants seem shared between the deserts, & (it seems) endemic to them, as nowhere else was mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hmmm. My estimate is that the overlap between these two desert flora categories is at most 15-20% -- which strikes me as sufficiently distinct to merit separate categories. If they do wind up being merged the contents definitely should be listified. Cgingold (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Even if there is some overlap, there should be separate subcats for each desert: it is then clear what flora pertains to which desert. Merging results in information loss. Hmains (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If only this were clear from the articles, never mind the categories! Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 15:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hillsong albums[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hillsong albums to Category:Hillsong Church albums or Category:Hillsong Music Australia albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename. From what I can tell, these albums are produced by Hillsong Church (but aren't always credited to the Church, i.e. they're often credited to a named artist) and are distributed by Hillsong Music Australia. I propose then that the category be renamed, to more accurately reflect it's contents, to Category:Hillsong Church albums (in which case it should be probably be a subcategory of Category:Albums by artist) or Category:Hillsong Music Australia albums (in which case it belongs to Category:Albums by record label). Alternative recommendations are of course welcome! kingboyk (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - In my experience the brand tends to appear Hillsong in (for example) song credits compilations of worship songs. There is a separate discussion about the numerous subcategories, where I am supporting their merger with the main category (but with a change in the name for the main article). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 15:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - They are groups this way in all listings I have seen and with few clear references to artists in the title. They are not just from Australia, at least the UK is represented. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would somebody explain to me then why Category:Queen albums was moved to the extraordinarily pedantic Category:Queen (band) albums merely because the Queen article had (for obvious reasons) to be disambiguated to Queen (band), whilst it's fine for albums by Hillsong Church to not be at Category:Hillsong Church albums? --kingboyk (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of medicine by country[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Kbdank71 15:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of medicine by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale

Recreation of deleted material. This category tree is a duplicate of Category:Historical medical landmarks by country, deleted per an October 24 discussion. The geographic subdivisions and articles contained are virtually identical between the two cases. Both category trees were created and populated by the same user.

Lack of a clear and/or useful scope. These categories lack a clear and/or useful scope as they lump together articles about everything that is related to medicine and history in a particular place. They contain articles about everything from burial structures, paintings, scientific texts, sculptures, libraries, research institutes, museums, roadways, hospitals, and even people.

Overcategorisation through unneeded duplication. Due to the fact that these categories contain articles about every type of object, they unnecessarily duplicate other existing category structures, including but not limited to Category:Medical museums, Category:Hospitals by country, Category:Medical researchers, Category:Medical research institutes, and Category:Medical literature.

Suboptimal basis for categorisation. The history of medicine has involved international collaboration and cooperation, and categorising on the basis of boundaries is inefficient and, in some cases, downright awkward. A more natural basis for subdivision is branch of medicine, for instance as outlined at History of medicine#Special history of medicine.

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and categories are not appropriate for developing such guides. The original Category:Historical medical landmarks by country – again, the content of the two category trees is almost identical – contained a notice stating that the category tree could be used "to easily locate ... important places to pay a visit to in every Country or Town" and even included talk of a "map" of such locations. While the category title is different, the purpose is still the same.

  • Delete as nominator (all of the articles are already otherwise categorised). – Black Falcon (Talk) 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This tree is significantly overcategorized. All of the subcategories that I investigated were populated with one article on the topic itself; a few of the categories had some historical medical institutions additionally. There's no question that Category:History of medicine needs to be cleaned up, as do the history by topic and by region cats generally (many of them are basically random collections of articles about things that are old or people that are dead). But this isn't the way. --Lquilter (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep countries, merge cities to country It is early days for these categories, but international co-operation or not, I see no reason why this tree should not have national categories like most large ones. If the articles in the rest of of the parent Category:History of medicine were diffused, the categories would look a lot better. The main division there is by theme or medical specialism, which is fine, but as there are many of these a by country split seems perfectly reasonable. Of course the category contains people, buildings (or rather institutions) and books! What would you expect a history category to contain? There are several categories - Germany, India etc, that should be added. On the other hand, the city categories are a step too far, & should be merged to the countries. If these go, things like Apothecaries Act 1815 - not diffused yet - will forever clutter up the main category. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category really shouldn't lump together people and objects, as it diminishes overall navigability and utility, and certainly not for a topic as broad as "history of medicine"... – Black Falcon (Talk) 16:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? Trees should not, but this is standard in end of the line history cats - see Category:Anglo-Dutch Wars, Category:History of Catholicism in England & hundreds of others. You & LQ need to make up your minds whether these cats are "broad" or overcategorisation! Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can be both! I can contain multitudes and so can this CFD. HOM is broad. Categorization by city is way too narrow. Categorization by country might be justifiable, but I think this leads into the bigger question of some of these subject history categories -- they just serve as a rather random aggregation of things and people from the past. --Lquilter (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is what history tends to be at the bottom level. The existing subcats of HOM are no different. Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. A "history" category that contains articles on every topic that is claimed (original research can be a serious problem here) to be of historical significance is not especially useful for navigation. Developed category systems already exist for people, buildings, places, works of art, and the like, and history categories should contain primarily articles on events. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is your view evidently, but it is completely opposed to the way all the bottom level history categories here that I have seen are organised, unless they are so large as to support their own "people of" etc sub-cats. The idea that history is just events would not gather support from any historian I think - military history apart, relatively few history articles are named after events. Why bringing people in should risk OR more than events is beyond me. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not OR to include people - since they're all a part of history - but the choice to include some people and exclude others, based on judgments about how much they contributed to the history of a subject, generally would be. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tidy up - many subjects need to be categorised by country or place. Because the diffusion of knowledge is not instanteous, such categorisation is perfectly legitimate. I would agree to upmerge cities, possibly also US States, but that will depend on the population of the categories (which I have not investigated). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, these subjects are categorised by country or place, just not in the context of "History of medicine in...", but rather "Hospitals in...", "Museums in...", and the like. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See nomination & debate above; you appear to be voting for deletion of the US category too! Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have 'voted' above and stand by my vote of upmerge cities to countries, but keep countries. The inclusion of inappropriate items is no reason to delete the entite tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just the inclusion of a number of inappropriate items that prompted my nomination, but rather the lack of any inclusion criteria beyond "related to medicine" + "related to Country X" and the overlap with other more defined categories. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These categories clearly do contain rather more articles on hospitals, mainly in the US, than are needed, but the fact remains that national sub-categories are a natural way forward for this messy head--cat. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-division by subject has actually hardly progressed at all, and will not be appropriate for many articles - what subject is Apothecaries Act 1815 under? None. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and per Pavel Vozenilek; history of X in location Y is usually not a useful overlap of categories unless something unique about X pertains to Y. Medicine doesn't really, and then you have the problem of shifting borders and whether these articles are really history of medicine or rather some cataloguing of medical facilities of Y, taking the position that all medical facilities are part of the history of medicine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very odd comment indeed! Every large history area has a by country division as often it's most fundamental next level of categorisation. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, medicine is quite transnational, so subdividing it by country doesn't make sense. Do we take heart transplant and add it to each county in which such an operation has been performed. Isn't by year more logical, if subdivision is required? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 15:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:KT boundary[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep as is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:KT boundary to Category:Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As a subcategory of Category:Extinction events, category should be for the event, not the geological evidence of the event. Compare Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event and K–T boundary. Snocrates 22:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the KT boundary is not equivalent to the extinction event. It might need recategorizing. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point. The KT boundary is one of the geological evidences of the extinction event. The category has a parent category which classifies according to extinction events, and articles about the KT boundary could be included in a category about the extinction event. I considered creating Category:Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event and making Category:KT boundary a subcategory of it, but that seemed like overcategorization to me. Snocrates 23:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The K–T boundary article itself would not fit into the renamed category. The boundary between two geologic periods is not necessarily an extinction event, as I understand it. Currently, this category serves as repository for events occuring around the KT boundary in time. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the article would not fit. From the article Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event: "It is widely known as the K–T extinction event and is associated with a geological signature, usually a thin band dated to that time and found in various parts of the world, known as the K–T boundary." The KT boundary is clearly linked to the extinction event and would fit nicely in the category. Snocrates 06:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose actually "KT boundary" is the name most used in English for this. Some abbreviations are not expanded when they are the most understood. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Let's stick with the most common name. Doczilla (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 15:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Stay with the common name. Science terms drive people up the wall and away from science--no reason to make things worse. Hmains (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I agree with Hmains opinion on keeping it simple. Sting_au Talk 11:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Escapees[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. There was a consensus to rename, but no consensus to what the name should be. This should probably be relisted at some point in the future, but I'm not going to do it now, as it was just relisted twice without a solution. Kbdank71 16:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Escapees to Category:Prison escapees or Category:To be determined by consensus
Category:Fictional escapees to Category:Fictional prison escapees to Category:To be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is a little vague. I realise the category includes people who have escaped from POW or penal colonies as well as prisons, but "prison escapees" seems to me to be a generic enough name. Main article is at Prison escape. Perhaps someone else might have a suggestion for an alternative. Snocrates 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Escaped captives" maybe? Although that might be taken to cover slaves. The POWs have a sub-category, so maybe it is clear enough. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the POWs are already covered; is there a meaningful difference between jail & prison for this? if not then the nom's "Prison escapees" can cover those; others who escape from other confinement (concentration or death camps? the Warsaw Ghetto?, others can be left at the highest level "Escapees" under which escaped slaves, and escaped kidnapped victims can be placed - maybe even draft evaders/deserters, defectors, and others who feel that they have escaped something. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 16:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: being an escapee is hardly a defining characteristics and those few exceptions got for sure included in more generic category. Categories should not be used as duplication of the content. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Prison escapes, and cut down to only those articles which are actually about notable escapes, not people who just escaped from a prison at some point in their life. Terraxos (talk)
  • Rename and repurpose the real-life to Category:Prison escapes per Terraxos. Delete the fictional escapees category. As with many Fictional foos categories, this is one of many traits that any number of fictional characters have in common that in most instances is not defining. The entire contents of Category:Alias (TV series) characters could be added here, as could most or all of Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, Category:Angel (TV series) characters and any number of other fictional spy or criminal characters for whom escaping from something or someone is par for the course. Otto4711 (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 15:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Category:Prisoner and detainee escapees to follow the parent category Category:Prisoners and detainees and to be inclusive of the article contents of this category. While jails (used for pre-trial detention and minor crimes with short sentences) are certainly different from prisons (major crimes, long term sentences), the people in both are prisoners (at least in the common language). This cat includes articles on the people who escaped ('escapees') and there is no reason to re-purpose it; if another category is needed for 'escapes', then create that separately. POW camp and other detention facility escapees are also included here; they could be isolated into a subcat of this cat if there are enough of them (I do not see that this currently exists). Hmains (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Hillsong[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge all. Kbdank71 16:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging:
Category:Hillsong Youth Alive albums to Category:Hillsong albums
Category:Hillsong worship albums to Category:Hillsong albums
Category:Hillsong London albums to Category:Hillsong albums
Category:Hillsong live praise & worship albums to Category:Hillsong albums
Category:Hillsong Kids albums to Category:Hillsong albums
Category:Hillsong instrumental albums to Category:Hillsong albums and Category:Instrumental albums
Category:Hillsong compilation albums to Category:Hillsong albums and Category:Compilation albums
Category:Hillsong Christmas albums to Category:Hillsong albums and Category:Australian Christmas albums
Nominator's rationale: Over-categorisation which hinders rathers than helps navigation. Multiple sub-categories of albums produced by the Hillsong Church, some containing a handful (or less) of articles. (Also, would somebody look into the notability of these/availability of independent reliable sources about them?) --kingboyk (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom except - Hillsong London and Hillsong Youth Alive appear to be independent churches/organizations (Hillsong Church London and Youth Alive Australia) and might need to be separate and renamed to match the parent article. Hillsong albums should probably be renamed to Hillsong Church albums. Otto4711 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're branches of the same church as far as I'm aware. I'm not sure whether that is a sufficient differentiator to warrant seperate categories (it might/might not be :) ). Agree about the parent category and will get it nominated. --kingboyk (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Main category nominated here. --kingboyk (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Fayenatic (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Merge all - My familiarity with the subject is limited (but not zero). The article Hillsong Music Australia seems to list all albums by category, including London, leaving the present article title as a redirect. I would accordinly suggest that the present article should be renamed Hillsong Music (at present a redirect) and ALL categoroies merged AS NOM. This will remove the difficulty over the London branch of the church also publishing albums. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 15:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ballets by choreographer[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. This has been empty since Jan 1. There was talk of populating it, but in the week this has sat here, no articles were categorized. No objections to recreating this if articles are found and added, but until then, there is no point in having an empty category. Kbdank71 16:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ballets by choreographer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is empty and technically eligible for speedy, but there are subcats of Category:Ballets that I assume could be placed here (no clue about ballet but I take it at least some of those are choreographers). So the question is whether we want to keep and populate this or not. I have no strong opinion either way. Otto4711 (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete many ballets have been choreographed by numerous different choreographer so this is less a work by artist and more a performance by performer. Think of how many categories will be added to Nutcracker? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep and populate: Otto, your assumption is right. Many of those sub-cats of Category:Ballets should either be moved into this one, or deleted. Better find someone who knows about ballet! Reading some of the articles gives the impression that first there is music by a composer, but it only becomes a ballet when someone choreographs it. If that's right, then this category should be kept, with notes that its use is restricted to the creator of the original work, so the category should not be used for those who oversaw subsequent performances. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have left a message for the ballet Wikiproject in hopes of getting some feedback from some people more knowledgeable about the topic. Otto4711 (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for articles with significant coverage of a particular version. Currently The Nutcracker, thanks perhaps to an absurdly NY-centric article, is only in the Balanchine category. But a few more could be added with a bit of expansion. But there are only a handful of ballets where this is true. Category:Ballets badly needs to distinguish between ballets by composer and by choreographer. I would suggest the easiest is to spell out both and set upCategory:Ballets by composer under the main category. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Johnbod. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Morris is a New Yorker, too! "The Hard Nut" is not to be missed. --Lquilter (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We really ought to be categorizing choreographic work by choreographer. Pretty much all the categories in Category:Ballets should be moved to this category. Frankly I think frequently adapted ballets should have one head article, and individual articles for separate significant choreographies and the composition. The fact that we don't just speaks poorly of Wikipedia's coverage of the performing arts. Let's not compound it by deleting the friggin' category. --Lquilter (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Soap opera characters created in the 1980s[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete and salt. Kbdank71 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose delete Category:Soap opera characters created in the 1980s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as redundant and unnecessary. There are enough soap categories for shows, characters, etc. A category just for characters created in the 1980s is not needed. KellyAna (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and it's only got three articles listed right now. IrishLass (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete recreated category made by suspected EJBanks sock. (SSP report has been filed.) ThuranX (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - so if it was previously deleted, created by a sock, why isn't there an speedy delete? Just wondering because I'm confused about category deletion processes. KellyAna (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Knowledge discovery in databases[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 16:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Knowledge discovery in databases to Category:Data mining and Category:Knowledge discovery
Nominator's rationale: Merge content to Category:Data mining and Category:Knowledge discovery; categorize Category:Data mining to Category:Databases and Category:Knowledge discovery. "Knowledge discovery in databases" is a rather clunky phrase for a specific type of "knowledge discovery". The head article does not actually exist -- Knowledge discovery in databases is a redirect to Data mining, which is the head article for Category:Data mining. All the relevant content in KDID could be better classified in "Data mining" and we need to create Category:Knowledge discovery with the head article Knowledge discovery. (Looking at the cat, some things might need to go in Category:Database theory, as well.) Lquilter (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not place "Data mining" under "Databases" (not precise, different concepts). Otherwise I support deleting the KDID category. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would a see also be appropriate? --Lquilter (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think this one needs to be relisted. Cgingold (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 15:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Databases. "Knowledge discovery" is a poor choice of term because it applies equally to finding out that wood floats or your wife is having an affair. "Data mining" seems to have a negative connotation. The current title is also flawed in that looking up a phone number online seems to fit as well. Since the concept is rather vague, an upmerge to databases seems in order, unless there is something along the lines of Category:Database studies or the like, but not sure that would cover what is wanted here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Databases is a storage mechanism; data mining (and "knowledge discovery") are search methods, and I disagree that data mining is er se pejorative. --Lquilter (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK data mining is commonly used non-pejorative term (Journal of Data Mining and Bioinformatics, more, etc) but relational database management systems (which is what is Category:Databases mostly about) are not the only way to implement data mining technologies. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears that everyone agrees that "Knowledge discovery in databases" is a problem and there's just not certainty about what to name it. We already have "data mining" and if the KDID category is deleted everything will go into that. I think that will be fine. Seems like there's no consensus on doing anything else with the contents and I think that's fine, too; the "knowledge discovery" category is, while not as vague as CS46 thinks, not that essential, to my mind. --Lquilter (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fast-food burger restaurants[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fast-food burger restaurants to Category:Fast-food hamburger restaurants
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use correct name and not slang in the title. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no objective criteria for inclusion and seems to be difficult to establish any in a NPOV and non-arbitrary way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom to Category:Fast-food hamburger restaurants. This category is the intersection between Category:Hamburger restaurants and Category:Fast-food restaurants and the articles in this category would have to be placed into these two categories if this category did not exist. That would not help WP. Not all these restaurants are part of chains, so 'chain' is not at all appropriate. Good category; we are surrounded by these hamburger restaurants (for good or for ill) in every mall and every major highway. Hmains (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:New Zealand television shows[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New Zealand television shows to Category:New Zealand television series
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For the sake of generalisation among all articles included and also consistency with other television series categories by nationality. •97198 talk 13:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:W3C standards[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:W3C standards to Category:World Wide Web Consortium standards
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation which is probably not-so well known to not require further explanation. Snocrates 10:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I hazard to guess that "W3C" is more well known than "World Wide Web Consortium", but it's more appropriate to spell it out for all readers, and there are more Google News results when it is spelled out. –Pomte 13:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had heard of the World Wide Web Consortium but not W3C. I'm moderately techno-aware, but not a super power geek or anything ... Snocrates 01:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen it called W3C but that is the more geeky usage. This may well be a case in point of why acronyms should never be used. It is probably the common name for those who are associated with its work. But it is simply Greek to everyone else. Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Accessories[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 16:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Accessories to Category:Fashion accessories
Category:Accessory brands to Category:Fashion accessory brands
Nominator's rationale: Rename. For specificity. Article is at Fashion accessory. Snocrates 10:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Infant's clothing[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Infants' clothing. Kbdank71 16:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Infant's clothing to Category:Infant clothing
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Or at least Category:Infants' clothing, since we're not limiting the category to one infant. I prefer the former, but take your pick. Snocrates 10:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pakistani Businessmen[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge the one article that isn't in both categories then delete. Happy everyone?. Kbdank71 15:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pakistani Businessmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as a redundant category. We already have Category:Pakistani businesspeople. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ninja Turtles: The Next Mutation[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. BencherliteTalk 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ninja Turtles: The Next Mutation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles, upmerge to main TMNT article Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series)[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. BencherliteTalk 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles in this category, one being the actual television show and the other is at AFD. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs by Diane Warren[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs by Diane Warren to Category:Songs written by Diane Warren
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name of the category does not make clear to readers that Warren wrote the songs rather than performed them. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I noticed the parent Category has either "Songs written by" or "Songs by" amongs the articles and "written by" does seem more descriptive in my opinion. Sting_au Talk 07:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kirti Chakra recipients[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. BencherliteTalk 21:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kirti Chakra recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, overcategorization by award winner. I do note that of the categories that have come up lately this is probably the most likely to be labeled "defining"; however, right now there is only one article in it, so it's not needed at this point even if it is defining. Lquilter (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I realize only one article in this Category, but it seems to me that this cat has potential to grow? Does anyone have any idea of how many Kirty Chakra recipients there actually are? Sting_au Talk 07:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just found a link to 34 recipients here[4] Strangly Maj. Crastro not mentioned? Sting_au Talk 07:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would still think it's OCAT by award-winner. There's no evidence suggesting this is a defining award that needs a category because people would automatically expect one. A list will work well. --Lquilter (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and WP:OC. We've deleted similar categories for low-level military awards like this previously. Otto4711 (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, low-level award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Podcast Award winners[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. BencherliteTalk 21:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Podcast Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by a non-defining award. Instead of a category, winners should be -- and are -- listed on Podcast Awards. Lquilter (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mr. Basketball of Michigan[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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. BencherliteTalk 21:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mr. Basketball of Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete OCAT by non-defining award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_1&oldid=1140678653"