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. Peter's suggestion could be created, but it's unclear if it would be appropriate for all the articles in the category and there's a clear consensus at least that the current name is incorrect. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category currently includes four articles: Backgammon, Chess, Polo and Tarot. There is not one word in any of these articles linking them with the Zoroastrian faith, no main article related to the category, and no apparent reason for the category to exist. Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is fair to say the games originated in Zoroastrian Persia, but quite another to say they are religious games; none is mentioned in Zoroastrianism.-choster (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Tarot comes from Italy and chess from India. I don't get the concept of this cat.Smiloid (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A narrow category with no evidence of any connection to Zoroastrianism for any of the games listed. Alansohn (talk) 01:50, 26 November 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. No opposition and many precedents. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Material is linked through main article text and template. Otto4711 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 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. Wizardman 21:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems no less maintainable than the other categories noted here since once a song is released it can be easily removed from the category. So long as there are reliable sources attesting to the songs' status WP:CRYSTAL is not implicated. Otto4711 (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's similar categories for books, movies, etc., why not songs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonD00d (talk • contribs)
Keep As long as the basis is reliable and verifiable sources, I see no issue with inclusion criteria. I do agree that maintenance is an issue, and there needs to be some mechanism to clean out songs that are finally released or that never make it out. Alansohn (talk) 04:12, 3 December 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:Singaporeans born outside Singapore[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 to Category:Immigrants to Singapore. It's true we almost never categorize by birthplace, but I think the discussion has demonstrated that this is really an "immigrants" category masquerading under a different name. Feel free to re-nominate if it is felt that being an immigrant to Singapore is non-defining. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization. Also, since most of Singapore's early population were immigrants, an inordinate number of historical figures would end up in this category. There is also no good reason why this category is a subcategory of "Category:Chinese Singaporeans", "Category:Malay Singaporeans", etc. — Cheers, JackLee–talk– 18:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this can be renamed to reflect better on the recent immigrants like Gong Li, Li Jiawei, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soccer174 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 26 November 2008
Comment: I think it will be very difficult if not impossible to define a category that only captures "recent" immigrants. How recent is recent? After 1960? 1970? 1980? Any year that is chosen will be an arbitrary inclusion criterion, and in time it will no longer be recent. More importantly, my view is that the category is not a very useful one in the first place. Why is it particularly signficant to single out people based on their places of birth? There do not appear to be similar categories in respect of other countries, e.g., "Category:Australians born outside Australia", "Category:Brazilians born outside Brazil". — Cheers, JackLee–talk– 10:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ... categories by place of birth have been deleted consistently. Occuli (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but this isn't one! Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Immigrants to Singapore, so that it becomes the 30th subcat of Category:Immigrants by destination country. Otherwise there is nothing at all wrong with this; the nom & Occuli are talking nonsense, I'm afraid. Any that were born Singaporean, but abroad, should be removed, but my sample did not turn up any such. I dare say relatively few of the earliest immigrants have articles anyway; it has only 39 members at present, so a deluge seems some way away! Nom seems right about the parents mentioned though. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: If there is an existing well-established group of categories of this nature, then I have no objection to the category being renamed "Category:Immigrants to Singapore". — Cheers, JackLee–talk– 03:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This is in view of Singapore's large foreign population (about 40% of the Singapore's population). I think immigrants after 1965 can be considered, the year Singapore obtained independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.243.216.4 (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no objection to the category being renamed to "Category:Immigrants to Singapore", but do not think it is a good idea to limit the category to only immigrants arriving after 9 August 1965 (the date of Singapore's independence). This seems to be a rather arbitrary inclusion criterion. — Cheers, JackLee–talk– 10:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - plus am I right in thinking that most of the 40%, if that is the right figure, do not have Singaporean nationality? Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a reference for that figure. — Cheers, JackLee–talk– 17:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for the feedback. I would also like to state that 'single them out' should not be viewed negatively. On the contrary, most of them are successful people, and it show to others that immigrants do have a place in Singapore and can be successful at the same time. I must admit the cut-off year is a difficult one though. Although 40% of the population are not citizens, those who have taken up citizenship have been increasing every year.
I found a 2007 article: http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_174948.html "About 7,300 Singapore citizenships were granted in the first half of this year, Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng told The Straits Times. If the trend continues, Singapore will have 14,600 new citizens this year. The figure is about 10 per cent higher than the record 13,200 citizenships granted last year. In 2005, 12,900 citizenships were given." Soccer174 (talk) 11:03, 28 November 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.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. Small enough category, that separating the songs seems premature. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 18:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the reasoning for the album CfD, below. Lugnuts (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. The creator of the category had, in the past, created nonsense and unpopulatable categories, so I assumed he was continuing. My apologies. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 18:40, 25 November 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.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge. Only one entry, creating the subcategory seems premature. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 18:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per precedent which states "Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future).". Lugnuts (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. The creator of the category had, in the past, created nonsense and unpopulatable categories, so I assumed he was continuing. My apologies. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 18:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No probs and no harm done! Lugnuts (talk) 18:52, 25 November 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.
Delete - eponymous overcategorization. Material is linked through the main article. Otto4711 (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As stated above and in the nomination, the title Lights needs to be disambiguated to avoid confusion and misuse. Per the broad precedent set at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_18#Category:LGBT-related_television_episodes, there is a simple test for determining if a category should be retained: Per WP:CAT, three questions that are useful in determining the utility of a category are: 1) is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the topic of the category? YES - The individual is covered at length at Lights (singer), which covers several paragraphs. 2) Is it obvious why any given article would be in the category? YES - while there is some possible ambiguity with the current name, the proposed rename will address that. Once renamed, there is no doubt as to what is included here. 3) Does the category fit into the overall categorization system? YES - Given the categories for albums and songs, this category fits well into the overall system. And the first guideline for category usage is that the category groups similar articles together. That is certainly happening here Alansohn (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OCAT#EPONYMOUS: In general, avoid creating categories named after individual people, or groupings of people (such as families or musical groups). Articles directly related to the subject (which would thus be potential members of such categories) typically are already links in the eponymous article in question. Hundreds of similar categories have been deleted previously. That a particular category was kept under WP:CAT in no way means that all categories will or should be, so copy/pasting the above text into one CFD after another is hardly persuasive of anything other than your knowledge gaps when it comes to the CFD process. Otto4711 (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In my judgement, there's not enough here to warrant a category. (It doesn't really matter one way or the other that it happens to be "eponymous".) Besides the 2 sub-cats, there is the following: the main article; an article about a tv program (Instant Star) that the artist happens to write material for, which has no business being in this category; and an article about an individual who happens to be managing the artist at the moment, for which this is doubtful categorization, imo. I don't what the general practice is on the latter, but even if it's included, that's only 2 articles & 2 sub-cats, hardly enough to warrant a category. As I've said before:
In all cases like this where there are two closely related sub-categories, but not enough contents to warrant having a super-category, the sub-cats should be linked to one another horizontally (using {{CatRel}}). This should be standard practice, imo. Cgingold (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the parent as WP:OCAT#EPONYMOUS, but CatRel the songs and albums categories per Cgingold. Bearcat (talk) 08:46, 28 November 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:speedy delete, CSD C3. BencherliteTalk 11:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete All pages have been cleaned up and the optional parameters which placed articles in this category have been removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 25 November 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.
Nominator's rationale: As it stands one would expect these categories to contain articles related to Free Use Licences. The names do not suggest that these are categories designed for administration of the project. ~ User:Ameliorate!(with the !) (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current title is confusing, but the proposed one is rather verbose (and does not escape the difficult issue of American and British English spelling differences). While I'm not sure what the ideal format would be, we might consider something shorter like what accompanies other "serious" userboxes e.g. Category:User en, Category:User php, etc. That said, this nomination may actually belong at WP:UCFD (so please copy my comment if it is moved there). — CharlotteWebb 14:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposed renames; these are Wikipedia-related categories, and should have names that reflect that. Terraxos (talk) 16:57, 29 November 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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete 'Stasi people' is terribly illdefined, and a pov landmine. I encountered the usage of the category at articles on politicians, and there is current controversy in German politics about so-called revelations of 'stasi connections' (allegations which rarely separate between people having actually worked for Stasi and people who in some way cooperated with the agency). 100 000s of GDR citizens were in some way connected to Stasi, Stasi had extensive networks throughout East German society. It is highly debatable to which extent individuals cooperated with Stasi voluntarily or under pressure. --Soman (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this category if kept will need to exclude Stasi informers, since the Stasi employed something like 1/3 of the East German populace. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - standard people category for an organization. The category may be used only for official Stasi employees, though. Barbro Luder (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider rename A significant and defining characteristic of people from the former East Germany. I'm not sure that either of Cgingold's perfectly capture the individuals to be included, but either would be a significant improvement from the current name. Alansohn (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there proves to be concensus for this name it will have my support. Cgingold (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Stasi officers, as DonaldDuck. This should limit it to its employees. On no account should we have a category for "Stasi imformers", as that would open up issues that ought to remain buried. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:24, 26 November 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:Foods and beverages with health benefits[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:as a member of the game-playing cabal and in the name of said cabal, I hereby arbitrarily say the result was DELETE. (I'm just teasing, Alansohn. But do remember, CfD is open to all users, and in my experience those who do choose to participate do not make their decisions based on arbitrary preferences of "likes" and "dislikes". An individual editor may not always be what you view as 100% consistent, but I think it's generally inappropriate to criticise other users by cross-comparing comments in separate CfD discussions. This is because there are so many factors that can contribute to the discussions being different and therefore productive of different opinions.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Don't pretty much all foods and drinks have health benefits, in the sense that you'll die if you don't eat and drink, and very many different types of foods contain nutrients essential for good health? This category could become very, very large; I don't think a categorization scheme this broad is either useful or necessary. Dr.frog (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If only it were so simple, this would be a terrific category. The problem, of course, is that, even though there are probably a few foods that we would all agree on, it's not possible to create objective inclusion criteria that would be agreed to by all editors. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We've already shown that objective criteria are not needed with the rather clear precedent set at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_18#Category:LGBT-related_television_episodes, which should be respected. It's easy to ridicule any category title into meaninglessness, but there does seem to be a possible category here with an improved title and a clearer set of inclusion criteria. The category includes two articles, both of which have lengthy sections about health benefits that take up the majority of the article. As always, the gold standard should be the inclusion of reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: The reason it's impossible to create usable (i.e. "objective") inclusion criteria is because there is no concensus in the real world on which foods are healthy and which are not. I'm sure you are aware of at least some of the highly contentious debates over various foods -- cow's milk and coffee being examples par excellence, where the two sides hold diametrically opposed views. Just imagine how that sort of dispute would play out in edit wars over this category. Cgingold (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Alansohn, we all get the point you're trying to make. Otto4711 (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TRUTH, we are not on a mission to find some unattainable certainty. The standard is verifiability. There are many foods for which strong, verifiable claims of health benefits for certain foods, above and beyond the empty calories and liquid contained therein. The standard should be the presence and availability of reliable and verifiable sources. Furthermore, and most importantly, per the broad precedent set at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_18#Category:LGBT-related_television_episodes there is no need whatsoever to provide objective inclusion criteria, nor is that an acceptable argument for deletion based on this precedent. While it is possible for consensus to change, there is no evidence that it has to impose this "objectivity" standard on an arbitrary and inconsistent basis. To Otto: If you have WP:POINT you're trying to make, please make one. Alansohn (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no WP:POINT to make, just a comment that this endless flogging of a single CFD is tiresome and copying and pasting substantially identical text into one CFD after another to further your odd attempt at demanding what amounts to the dismantling of the CFD process is borderline disruptive. Otto4711 (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The CfD process has already been turned into a game, based entirely on arbitrary determinations of a small handful of editors. In trying to introduce a small measure of consistency into this process, making use of precedent set in other important cases will be essential in turning this into a rules-based process, instead of wondering whether some editor likes or dislikes a particular category. In eliminating the argument that an objective standard with universally-accepted definitions is required, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_18#Category:LGBT-related_television_episodes sets an important precedent that applies to all categories, and will help reduce the huge amounts of time wasted at CfD by editors pushing this as an argument for deletion. You are free to argue otherwise, though you would be largely arguing with the case you've made elsewhere. Alansohn (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CFD certainly has rules, and your continued dishonoring of the people who have spent hours upon hours coming to consensus over them is to say the least disheartening. But by all means, please continue stamping your little feet and shouting at the rain, if it makes you feel better. Otto4711 (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will take your latest incivility as a small step forward from your more customary profanity-laced tirade. I do appreciate the important input you contributed in establishing precedent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_18#Category:LGBT-related_television_episodes, which establishes a substantial number of rules to be followed at CfD. Your arguments there have me more than convinced. No need to repeat anymore as I now understand the rules as clearly as possible, thanks to your exposition on when a category is justified. Alansohn (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incivility and profanity-laced tirades are not acceptable, but neither is it acceptable to try and goad people into such behavior with facetious and sarcastic comments. Wikipedia is not a battleground, so please, both of you stop making this personal. It's really getting disruptive. Postdlf (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Cgingold. This is really meaningless as a category and inevitably prone to OR. It's possible a much narrower category may be made, but anyone can start that from scratch without trying to strain this one (which only has two entries at present) into something completely different than what it is. Postdlf (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the real world, where articles are deleted, they can be simply recreated in almost all cases by addressing issues of sourcing and content that may have justified an earlier deletion. In the CfD world, the rationalization of recreation of a deleted category is routinely misused to prevent the creation of categories that have any similarity to a previously-deleted category. The claim that "anyone can start that from scratch" unfortunately is not a viable response to deletion in the cloistered world of CfD. Alansohn (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a more narrow category is needed, perhaps it already exists in the form of category:diet and food fads. :-P See also the list and discussion at superfood. Dr.frog (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Most if not all foods and beverages when consumed in moderation have some health benefit. Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too indiscriminate and would probably house everything in Cat:food and cat:beverage if used in a subjective manner. Food and beverage have nutritional value which produce health benefits (the problem is in the dosage). Anyways I think the comparison with the LGBT-episodes and health benefits is poor. You can't measure "LGBT'ness" (if that's a word) since it's subjective but you could measure nutritional value. Per Cgingold, I don't think an objective threshold, defined by scientific consensus, for a food item to have health benifits exists.--Lenticel(talk) 03:56, 27 November 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.
Nominator's rationale: The present name for this category is simply wrong. The Norwegian Eidsvold class ships were not battleships, they were coastal defence ships. This is even a subcategory of Category:Coastal defense ship classes. Note also, just to avoid confusion, that in all three classes of Norwegian coastal defence ships the "defence" part is spelled with a "c" and not an "s". Manxruler (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article and category.--Lenticel(talk) 03:57, 27 November 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.
