Category:Significant Achievements or Inventions[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. Black Falcon(Talk) 01:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - Completely subjective inclusion criteria, category not needed. Improper capitalization so at minimum needs a rename. VegaDark (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You may be able to see what the creator is driving at, but per nom it's pretty much entirely subjective and inclusion criteria are ill-/non-defined ... Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Is Fire an invention or .... Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll leave it be then. I thought it would be a good category for things such as those listed (fire - ability to control it is one of man's greatest achievements, as it says in the article) etc etc etc Andy Johnston (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category is about the content which is criteria for inclusion. Martarius (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2008 (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.
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. Black Falcon(Talk) 01:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just added National American Indian Memorial (colossal sculpture) to this category as I could find no better place to put it and category is underpopulated anyway. Station1 (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Categories about buildings combine with buildings about structures. Martarius (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2008 (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:Fictional characters with mental illness[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:relisted on march 27. Kbdank71 13:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale- generally this is a category which appears to be listing fictional characters with a "mental illness", however to me it appears to be a POV category and many of the characters listed are 1) Comic book villains which even then have no real verification of a "mental illness" 2) characters with no verifacation of a mental illness but have been put there by a users opinion, and 3) about 2 actual characters that actually have something not right. The category has been built on "unsourced" original research. AndreNatas (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems like standard comic book characters (as opposed to special ones, like in Maus or V for Vendetta) should have a separate subtree under fictional characters, since they are so... messed up (and prone to frequent retconning) 70.51.8.110 (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep struth it seems like every day you people are nominating "category: fictional (something)" for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKR619 (talk • contribs) 07:29, March 23, 2008
Comment: I'm leaning toward either deletion or possibly renaming to Category:Fictional characters with diagnosed mental illness. In principle, this should be a very valuable category. But I'm afraid that AndreNatas is quite right in his assessment of how it's actually being used. My impression is that the most serious abuse results from the inclusion of comic book characters, which inherently tend to be bizarre caricatures. So I'm thinking that perhaps they should be confined to their own universes -- i.e. excluded entirely -- which might go a long way toward dealing with the problems that have been noted. Maybe we should give that a try, and then revisit this category if it still appears to be a problem. Cgingold (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, some of the sub-cats are also problematic in certain respects. I am going to remove Category:Fictional characters with multiple personalities entirely -- and also rewrite the description, since very few if any of those characters actually suffer from multiple personality disorder. They're merely imaginary characters who happen to have alternate personalities. Cgingold (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may need to be re-listed to achieve some sort of concensus on how to proceed. It certainly should not be left as-is, given how messed up the contents are. Cgingold (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2008 (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.
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 all. Kbdank71 13:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per parent Category:Automotive templates' name (because these templates may be used for vehicles other than automobiles). Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have combined these two closely related nominations to save space, discourage redundant comments, and ensure consistent results. — CharlotteWebb 21:10, 21 March 2008 (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.
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 all. Kbdank71 18:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Better language. We have renamed categories like "African lakes" years ago. Darwinek (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Better wording of category than my original wording when I created it . Mattisse (Talk) 12:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have combined these two closely related nominations to save space, discourage redundant comments, and ensure consistent results. — CharlotteWebb 21:10, 21 March 2008 (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:Member states and observers of La Francophonie[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" (well, technically, just confirm what was already done). Kbdank71 13:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was discussed before, initially as a delete, and was closed as "no consensus" (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 3). I hope that by specifically proposing a rename right away we can reach consensus this time. The point is that observer status in this organization (as opposed to membership) is not a significant attribute of the countries concerned (Poland is an example), and should not therefore be the basis for one of their categories. Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: following the renaming, those countries which are only observers would be removed from the category.--Kotniski (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: makes more sense to include just the members and not bother about the other states, where the Język (mowa) isn't Język francuski. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; not defining for observers, but it is for full members I think. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify the observers by creating a redirect to the observers list in the Francophonie article, and adding it to the partent cat. 70.51.8.110 (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom & per my own comments in the original CFD for this category. Cgingold (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attention: I've removed the closing template that Kotniski added. Editors who are involved in a particular CFD are not permitted to close that CFD. Cgingold (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that (but maybe WP:Snowball might apply?) Anyway I confess I had started putting the decision into effect as well, which is why the target name is no longer red-linked (and indeed contains some members).--Kotniski (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I've gone ahead and emptied the original category, to avoid leaving a confusing intermediate state. If the snowball does somehow manage to avoid the flames, I'll take responsibility for putting everything back. (This is anyway more complicated than an automatic rename, so I'm actually saving some administrator work here, despite breaking pretty much every rule there is in the process.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. I know you're doing this in good faith, Kotniski, but again, there's a reason we generally do not empty out categories prior to closure of a CFD, even when the result may appear obvious: It deprives other editors of the opportunity to assess how a category is being used. So like I advised you on your talk page, just hang tight and allow the procedure to unfold in the normal way. No need to rush things... Cgingold (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I explained above, I was already in the middle of doing it, so I had to go either forward or back, and forward seemed most helpful to the project. Maybe someone who's entitled can just close this discussion (which has never been controversial), so that I can carry on populating the new category. (The old category was being populated inappropriately by a template, so it's that behaviour I've been mostly working on changing - the renaming of the category is a somewhat secondary matter.) --Kotniski (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2008 (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.
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. Kbdank71 13:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Disambiguation. Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have combined these two closely related nominations to save space, discourage redundant comments, and ensure consistent results. — CharlotteWebb 21:10, 21 March 2008 (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:Central and South American cardinals[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 (all subcats are already in cardinals by nationality). Kbdank71 13:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: essentially both regions cover the same area and Latin America is the more commonly considered region Mayumashu (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless you can think of some way of adding in Suriname, French Guiana, and Guyana, which are in South America but are not part of Latin America. Grutness...wha? 10:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose French Guiana really is Latin America, but the other two (and Belize) aren't. Anyway, it makes more sense to go by a well-defined geographical region, rather than by what language their countries speak — see the definitions section of the Latin America article to see how many different definitions there are for Latin America. This new title is more ambiguous than the current one. Nyttend (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by nation, not by collection of ill-defined groups of nations. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; we don't need "by groups of nations" categories in this case; cardinals by nationality is sufficient. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
supportive of a delete outcome as well. nominator Mayumashu (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2008 (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.
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: moving to WP:UCFD where it belongs, where the debate continues. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Project is inactive and AfD closing is primarily for Admins. Users should not be calling themselves closing participants when, in general, non-admin closures should be an exception not a norm. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As co-founder of said project. The second co-founder is on wikibreak, as i just came off of, and is also an admin. We are very capable of knowing when to close an afd. Nominater is just mad that I closed his AFD nomination. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try some WP:AGF. The project has been tagged as inactive since September. Obviously the founders are not paying attention to it. Your personal issues with me have nothing to do with it. The category is for an inactive project and thus doesn't need to exist anymore. I also feel regular editors shouldn't be running around claiming to do what is primarily an admin task, but that's another issue.AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An accusation that this is a retaliatory CfD is not AGF. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to offend you, but thats exactly what I call this. :) Toughen up your skin. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My skin is fine and I didn't take offense. I could care less of your opinion. I'm just reminding you. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all other WikiProject participant categories, and move this discussion to WP:UCFD where it belongs.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2008 (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.
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. Kbdank71 18:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - the temporary association of some pro wrestlers in an "alliance" or "team" is non-defining. A list in the article for the team, if it exists, is sufficient to present the information. Otto4711 (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, OCAT by changing "teams" is performer by performance material. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2008 (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.
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. Kbdank71 18:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am responsible in a large measure for bringing this up, but I don't support the use of obsolete names that no one uses. Vermont is consistent with the rest of the country. It is easier to deal with that way. This will not confuse any Vermonter. My apologies to Nyttend.Student7 (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that state law doesn't use the term "county seat"; as long as it's that way, it's used by plenty of people and not obsolete. We already use it in the article titles, and all the county navboxes (see Category:Vermont county navigational boxes) list them as shire towns. Anyway, we've had testimony from various Vermont residents that the term is in use statewide. This debate actually began with St. Johnsbury, where there was a big discussion on this topic; see the applicable section. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Can be reconsidered if Bilbo Baggins is elected governor. — CharlotteWebb 21:01, 21 March 2008 (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.
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. Kbdank71 18:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - this nomination is intended to serve as a test nomination for the other similar Sundance by year categories. Films are not defined based on the film festivals at which they appeared, even if the festival is as prestigious as Sundance. A list of films that played at the festival, either in the article for that year's festival or as a stand-alone, is the better way to present this information. Otto4711 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is analagous to "performer by performance" categorization, which rarely if ever makes good sense. It's also worth noting that even the mother (or grand-daddy) of all film festivals, the Cannes Film Festival, does not have categories like this. A list divided by year would be fine. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - considering that many films may show in dozens of festivals, this seems like it will only cause problems down the line. There is no reason why the article on the 1985 Sundance Film Festival can't include a complete listing of films screened, and this is a case where lists are far more adequate than categories. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is useful. Sundance is particularly notable as a springboard for independent films, to an extent that Edinburgh or Berlin or wherever just aren't. I think it's very valuable to be able to browse to see what other films were in the same cohort. I don't think there's an analogy to "performer by performance" -- unlike actors previously, there's no evidence of films being overburdened with categorisations. Also: being the kind of film that is taken to Sundance is quite a defining characteristic for a movie. Jheald (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't forget that movie festivals can show all kinds of crazy movies, if we filled all movies into categories of what movie festivals they appeared in, the movie could be in hundreds of categories, maybe even thousunds. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Begrudging Acceptance of Delete. The people have spoken. I can't find any examples for a film related year by year category or a rule to justify this particular category. —A 05:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Obviously a consensus to keep or delete this one category should be broadly interpreted with regards to the other two dozen "Sundance by Year" categories seen here. It would have been better to make this explicit in the nomination. — CharlotteWebb 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How much more explicit than the first sentence of the nomination, this nomination is intended to serve as a test nomination for the other similar Sundance by year categories, does it need to be? Otto4711 (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than saying "this is a test", I personally would have used a section heading "==All Sundance Film Festival by year categories==" with a link to the parent category. I just don't want to see an awkward situation where one this category gets deleted and the other 24 or so are part of a group CFD that gets kept, or vice versa (due perhaps to philosophical differences among participants from one week to the next). I'm not saying this is likely, but stupid things do happen sometimes, both here and on AFD, so best to keep discussion in one place whenever possible. — CharlotteWebb 01:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While there are drawbacks to either approach, I much prefer Otto's choice of testing out the waters first, before submitting the entire cohort of sub-cats. Cgingold (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, so long as it is made clear it is to be regarded as a test case, which he did. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2008 (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.
