Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 30

< March 29	March 31 >

March 30[edit]

Category:Films Banned in Iraq[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. the wub "?!" 18:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Not a defining characteristic for films included in the category, which at the time of nomination included Three Kings, South Park, and the 2002 Pinocchio, the latter of which was obviously banned simply for its awfulness. Would make a fine list, though, if properly cited. (If kept, should be renamed Category:Films banned in Iraq to fix capitalization.) Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we already have information at Banned films#Iraq. It appears that the majority of films banned in at least one place have actually been banned in several places. If we did have "films banned in..." categories for every country they would become an unwieldy eyesore when stacked at the bottom of Borдt, and exhibit a high degree of redundancy when browsed. Delete. — CharlotteWebb 23:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & CharlotteWebb. This is pretty analagous to the "xxx-by-performance" cats that are well understood not to make good sense as categories. Cgingold (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Many works have been banned, proscribed, censored, restricted, redacted, or burned in one or more places by one or more entities; that is not a defining characteristic of the work, although it may be worth noting in the article about the work, and it may be worth writing an article about censorship in Iraq. (I note in passing that the impulse behind this kind of category is really to address a topic that is probably worth addressing, but the topic needs to be addressed straight-forwardly and with references as an article -- not a cheap to create, expensive to maintain category that produces only an alphabetical list of contents. --Lquilter (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete variation of performer by performance per Cgingold. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 3 April 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:Scandals in sports[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. the wub "?!" 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Scandals in sports to Category:Sports scandals

Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate, Target category has existed since 2005; new category was created in March 2008. Keeping a soft redirect might be a good idea. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of "Scandals in sports"; I did a cursory check for a similar category and found none. Now that I know a similar category exists, I favor the deletion of the new one created by me - I will begin using the preexisting category. Brain Rodeo (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, you could move the four articles to the other category, tag the empty one with {{db-author}} and be done with it. On a general note though I don't think it is appropriate to categorize a person as a "sports scandal". If they were involved in a "sports scandal" we can write an article about the incident and put that in the category instead. — CharlotteWebb 22:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 3 April 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:Counterterrorism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. the wub "?!" 18:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Counterterrorism to Category:Counter-terrorism

Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicates; Target category has existed since 2005; unhyphenated category was created in March 2008. Main article is at Counter-terrorism, with the hyphen. Keeping a soft redirect would be helpful. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. -Lenticel ^(talk) 04:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious merge per nom. Cgingold (talk) 03:00, 1 April 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:Predator series[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. the wub "?!" 18:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Predator series to Category:Predator (franchise)

Nominator's rationale: (franchise) is a better disambiguating term as that’s what this category includes: all articles related to the Predator film franchise and its related media (comics, video games, etc.). The parent category for all things Alien-related has been changed to Category:Alien (franchise) after an AfD, and this closely-related franchise has a similar difficulty with naming that could be solved with an identical category rename. This move would mirror the inclusive renaming of the Alien category. IllaZilla (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and previous similar change. Grutness...wha? 23:14, 31 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.

Basketball players by club in Spain[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 all. Kbdank71 18:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging

Nominator's rationale: the word 'basketball' in name is redundant as these are all basketball clubs (eg. Category:Chicago Bulls players and not Category:Chicago Bulls basketball players) Mayumashu (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename all per nom. —Scouter Sig 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 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:Homo mermanus[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 18:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Homo mermanus to Category:Marvel Comics Atlanteans

Nominator's rationale: Merge - these two categories cover the exact same territory. No need for both. Otto4711 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. The latter name is also much more clear for those of us not well-versed in the Marvel universe.-choster (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom & Choster. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:50, 3 April 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:Sea creatures[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. the wub "?!" 18:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure that this is a useful category; we already have more specific biology categories that would fill the same need. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have not yet seen a category specifically for Sea Creatures. I feel that this category being here would help to give some insight as to what a sea creature is!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavin93 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment relocated to correct CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the category is apparently intended to serve as a home for anything and everything that ever lived in the ocean, whether real, fictional or mythological. As such the category would be potentially enormous, encompassing everything from plankton to The Little Mermaid. Not useful for organizational or navigational purposes. Otto4711 (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This might be appropriate as a category of categories, but it should contain no articles, which should all be in subcategories of it. I have not investigated in detail and so give no vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional sea creatures exists as a subcategory of Category:Aquatic organisms. Postdlf (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is an article in the wrong name space. I don't think it is worth moving. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 4 April 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:Fish out of water films[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. Kbdank71 18:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical of the assertion that this, a sub-category of Category:Films by genre, pertains to an actual genre, or that unambiguous criteria could be adopted. As currently written, the category's description page isn't a far cry from saying "films which kinda sorta have a plot" and the lack of an explanatory article (see the red link) is also somewhat telling. Delete. — CharlotteWebb 18:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While "fish out of water" is an expression, it does not seem to be a defined film genre -- see Google Books Search with the keywords "fish out of water" movie OR "fish out of water" film. Like Charlotte pointed out, the lack of an explanatory article is telling. In addition, reviewing the films that are categorized under this, there seem to be a lot of questionable entries, a lot of which just has to do with ordinary figures involved in extraordinary circumstances. The category does not seem appropriate because it would be too opinionated to determine if a film fits the "fish out of water" term. In addition, I'm not sure if the term would solely apply to comedies. There are some serious examples on there like Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home that could qualify for the term, too. Ultimately, this category does not follow a defined genre, and the criteria for inclusion seems too subjective for navigation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought this might have been a re-creation, but I was thinking of the AfD for Fish out of water comedy film. This is not the place to elevate a plot setup into a film genres.-choster (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Charlotte Vale is a "fish out of water" in her own home and, to a certain extent, as a cruise ship passenger in Now, Voyager, and the unnamed heroine of Rebecca is a "fish out of the water" throughout most of the film. I hardly would categorize either of these as "Fish out of water films," although some could argue they qualify because of the positions in which their lead characters find themselves, so it becomes an issue of POV and whose should be dismissed and whose should prevail. I think it's better to avoid what could become heated discussions and just delete the category. MovieMadness (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure POV and suffers the same ills of all films about categories: how much about the subject must the film be and what RS tells us that it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 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:Live-action/animated films[edit]

Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 7#Category:Live-action/animated films. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pokémon actors[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. Kbdank71 18:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A performer-by-performance category, which is deleted by concensus normally. Neier (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent. Lugnuts (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this darn category because none of these articles were part of the Pokemon category, and they are a large enough number (more than 24) to be its own paragraph. If it must be deleted, please upmerge them all to Category:Pokemon. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - performer by performance overcategorization. Consensus is clear that we do not categorize actors on the basis of the TV shows/films/video games in which they appear. Neither should this be upmerged to the parent category as this is also overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not merge, per Otto4711. Create a darn list. Postdlf (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete performer by performance, per nom & Otto & a zillion precedents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's also a confusing title. I assume these are voice actors? Pokemon is an animated franchise, after all. There are no on-screen actors. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:48, 3 April 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.