Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 6 November 8 >

November 7[edit]

Category:Bottle episodes[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 13:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bottle episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Bottle episode is unreferenced and there is no sourcing in the episode articles that supports their being classified as "bottle episodes". Inclusion in the category is dependent on original research because of the assumptions inherent in drawing the conclusion that they're such episodes. Otto4711 (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now since without third-party sources for this categorisation, Bottle episode gives no sourceable guidance either, and even if it did, we could not rely upon ourselves as a WP:RS. A bit of a circular argument, really, but even given our own article, this cat would still require reliable sources independently of that. As it is, it's a hotbed of WP:OR. --Rodhullandemu 23:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 8 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:Disused railway stations on Merseyside[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Disused railway stations on Merseyside to Category:Disused railway stations in Merseyside
Nominator's rationale: The naming of this category is inconsistent with other Merseyside categories which are "in Merseyside"; this is the only one that is "on Merseyside" —Snigbrook 23:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Wirral one is misleading, as "on the Wirral" appears to refer to the peninsula instead of the district. I've nominated that category for renaming. —Snigbrook 01:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having lived there, I would say that either "on" or "in" would be acceptable. Since "Merseyside" could apply either to the Metropolitan County or the geographical area, it has to be moot in that respect, and "Wirral" is (except for when it merges into Cheshire around Ellesmere Port) largely well understood. --Rodhullandemu 02:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The phrase is not incorrect but we should have consistency. ---BlackJack | talk page 09:39, 9 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:College radio stations in Oregon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:College radio stations in Oregon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization crossing geographical and format designations along with the basic subject counter to precedent and consensus. The category was previously deleted twice and the second CfD overturned primarily due to a procedural mistake by the nominator, once after a CfD and again as a speedy on the basis of the prior CfD, which was then overturned because of a procedural dispute with the original deletion. Dravecky (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the student newspapers category should exist either, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS pertains here — Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations, the project that's looked after maintaining and developing policies and guidelines around the radio station categories, doesn't include newspapers, and there isn't AFAIK a WikiProject Newspapers dealing with the analogous issues. And incidentally, the student newspapers subcategory was created by the same person, at the same time, as this was. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, there was only one CFD; the second deletion was a speedy on the basis of the prior CFD, which was then overturned because of a procedural dispute with the original deletion. That said, this violates WP:OCAT#Intersection by location, and the parent categories aren't large enough to require subcategorization by state. WP:WPRS has long had a consensus against subcategorizing radio stations by format-state intersections. And the case for recreating it was wikilawyering which was based on either distorting or misrepresenting the applicable policies and guidelines — and which really boiled down, at its core, to "it should stay because I want it to". Delete. Bearcat (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - yep, Wikilawyering, you know, asking people to follow the rules such as the actual process at WP:CFD (that specifically would be tagging the category with a notice it was up for deletion so more than just a person or two can actually weigh in on the matter), though I find it really interesting that you failed to note and inform people here that your actual reasoning for deleting it in your edit summary was: "18:10, May 31, 2008 Bearcat (Talk | contribs) deleted "Category:College radio stations in Oregon" ‎ (per Radio Stations Wikiproject, format categories aren't broken down by state.)" so there was no mention of a CFD, just a reference to a WikiProject. So was it a CFD or a WikiProject rule? Aboutmovies (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it might not have been the best idea in retrospect for my original edit summary to refer to WPRS policy instead of the CFD, doing so does not inherently violate any part of CFD policy. Kindly stop pretending that it does. Bearcat (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who said using that was a violation (using a WP rule)? I think it was a violation to delete it without using the formal process, which the DRV proved out. Now, I am saying that here you claim it was CFD, but you didn't originally, and you seem to be hiding from that. And this is very relevant when you go around making accusations of wikilawyering and technicalities. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please let's just give our opinions on whether or not this category should be deleted, basing our arguments on any relevant policy and guidelines. There is absolutely no need to rehash previous discussions. It is here at Cfd now, let the Cfd do its work. Dravecky, could you correct your description of the timeline to reflect that there was one Cfd and a speedy deletion of the recreated category based on the Cfd, but that the Cfd was overturned after a deletion review because of an inadvertent procedural error and the category relisted? Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are an adequate number of such stations in the state to justify the category. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The number of entries that can be filed in a category is not a valid consideration in determining whether a category should exist or not. If a category fails WP:OCAT, it can be deleted even if it contains hundreds of articles. Bearcat (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, see WP:OVERCAT, in your favorite section to quote where it says and I quote "However, location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories." Aboutmovies (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The category in question is not large enough to require subdivision. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a policy/guideline for that assertion. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:CAT (its navigational) and passes WP:OVERCAT. Is no more an intersection than every other category broken down by state, and what is more is that OVERCAT by Intersection allows for this (intersection is not banned). Bearcat, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism for a WP dealing with newspapers. And no, size does not "require" and size never requires, but the example shows for those in excess of 200 (i.e. when there is more than one page) that you can deal with this by subcats instead of by using a TOC. Thus size is in the eye of the beholder. Cats as for navigation, this does that as readers are far more likely to be interested in this type of station only in relation to those in their own state, and if they want others, then it is just a click away as a parent cat. It also helps reduce the number of cats in the actual articles (another goal of OVERCAT) by combining the US college cat in an article and the radio stations in Oregon cat for most of the articles. Plus, as I've mentioned before, I personally find it best to keep cats well below 200 for readability issues, and always below 200 for reader related cats (i.e. non-mainspace cats) as many new readers may not understand the (next 200) part, as I know I didn't when I first started editing. But hey, who cares about the reader, let's worry about a queasy WikiProject instead. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not pass WP:OVERCAT. Intersection by location requires that the location has an inherent bearing on the topic's other characteristics; namely, "college radio station in Oregon" has to be, in and of itself, a unique class of thing that differs in a substantive way from "college radio station in Pennsylvania". Bearcat (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion, my opinion though stands. First, as I quoted for you above, your favorite OVERCAT section continues and discusses when it is appropriate to have the intersection. And your argument seems to fall flat on its face since Category:Radio stations in Manitoba would not be different (I believe your words are "unique" and "substantive") from say Category:Radio stations in Ontario. Or take the Manitoba cat, how is Category:Radio stations in Brandon, Manitoba (a cat you created with 5 whole articles in it) unique from Category:Radio stations in Winnipeg (a cat you created) and both unique from Category:Radio stations in Manitoba (a cat you created)? Manitoba has far fewer stations than Category:College radio stations in the United States (and fewer than Category:Radio stations in Oregon), so how is this justified? Seems the Oregon college cat is more of a "I don't like it" argument. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You will find that categorization by city has been a subject of lively debate in the WPRS but in any case if there is a need to resort to personal attacks and calls to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to try to justify this overcategorization, then it's quite clear that emotion and not policy is guiding this !vote. - Dravecky (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for the OTHERSTUFF essay. Which you might want to read the second sentence "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." (emphasis added). What policy supports deleting this cat? Both WP:CAT and WP:OVERCAT (both are guidelines, not policies) both support keeping the cat as demonstrated above. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. And kindly read WP:ONLYGUIDELINE, which explains why "that's only a guideline/essay" is not a valid reason to discount the reasoning contained therein. Guidelines and essays are binding unless there's an actual reason to treat the individual case in question as a specific exception to them; the fact that they're only guidelines does not legitimize simply ignoring them. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essays are binding!? Excuse me but what? Essays are not binding. Essays may range from personal or minority views to statements that enjoy a wide consensus amongst Wikipedia editors. Unlike policies and guidelines, no formal attempt to gauge their consensus has been made. There is no way essays are binding. They are opinion pieces that could have a total of one adherent. That is why they are essays and not policies or guidelines. Policies and guidelines are binding, as they have gone through WP:CONSENSUS. That said, notice what I wrote that even there the essay OTHERSTUFF does not support the earlier usage by you or Dravecky in the way that you think. So I was dismissing it not only as both an essay, but also because how it was being used was improper. To spell it out, otherstuff exists can be a valid argument for keeping, as the essay states, thus just pointing to OTHERSTUFF to try and have something deleted is improper. As to the policy/guideline distinction, there is one. Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature. But the main point I was calling out with that was that Dravecky implied there is some policy that should be driving the keep/delete debate. And as I pointed out, there is not a policy on point. There are two guidelines, and as I pointed out there and previously, both can support keeping the category. Saying there is a policy misrepresents the argument here, as policies are more strict. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:ONLYGUIDELINE again. Keep reading it until it sinks in. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for assuming I did not understand it, versus I disagree with your contentions/opinions. But note, an essay (which is what ONLYGUIDELINE is) telling people that essays are binding and somehow important would be rather circular. And please recall above where I not only said is it not only just an essay, but then countered the argument by showing that OTHERSTUFF (part of the same essay) actually can be used to argue for inclusion (thus "...supplemented with some more arguments"). So I didn't just point and say its only an essay, I also countered what the argument was. The point about it being an essay is that as such, it is subservient to policies and guidelines. And here we have two guidelines on point, and both can support keeping the cat. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point was, is and continues to be that "that's only an essay" is not, in and of itself, a valid reason to disregard or ignore what it says — because the essay does represent the broad working consensus of people involved in past debates, you need to cite an actual reason why it doesn't apply in this particular case. The fact that it's "just an essay" does not give you license to simply dismiss it if there isn't a specific reason, in this specific circumstance, to do something differently from the way it's been done in the past. There are sometimes valid reasons to debate or disregard or revise what an essay or a guideline says — but the mere fact that it's an essay is not, by itself, one of those reasons. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I didn't, in fact I quoted the essay in support of my position. And we are free to disregard an essay, as they are arguments that are used to support a position ("Essays, in general, serve to summarize a position, opinion or argument."), not an actual guideline on how to do something in a specific circumstance. Thus like any opinion I and everyone is free to disregard or disagree with that opinion. The essay is pointed to only to summarize the person's argument. Guidelines and policies are then different in that respect. That is where one needs specific reasons to "to do something differently from the way it's been done in the past". Aboutmovies (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategorizing "Radio stations in country" by province or state is always valid — and it's not an intersection, because that's the parent. Subdividing that further by city, similarly, is not an intersection, because it's not tying together two distinct subcategories of "Radio stations in Canada". "Intersection by location" refers to groupings that tie together unrelated subcategories of the same parent tree. It does not invalidate subdividing a parent category. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So now you agree? "by province or state is always valid" so here where it is a sub cat by state, it is always valid. You see parent is relative, and the U.S. college radio station cat is the parent of this cat, as it is the cat above this. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"College radio stations in the United States" is not a parent category; it's a grouped-by-genre subcategory of Category:Radio stations in the United States. Simply deeming any category you want to subdivide as a "parent" so that its subdivisions become plain intersections instead of triples isn't really the way things are done around here. What's then to stop you from deeming "College radio stations in Oregon" as a parent so that you can further subdivide it into "College radio stations in Eugene" vs. "College radio stations in Portland" vs. "College radio stations in McMinnville"? Only the undivided "Radio stations in the United States" is a parent; anything under that is a subcategory. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"College radio stations in Oregon" as would be parent of "College radio stations in Eugene" and any other cat that is the sub. Basically anything at the bottom of a cat where there are the | separate things is a parent cat. Anything in the "Sub cat" area at the top is a sub cat. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#What are categories? for further details. Otherwise what is a parent is apparently whatever someone says it is, for instance here where you say it is Category:Radio stations in the United States, but shouldn't really be in your argument that Category:Radio stations is the parent or even Category:Radio? Why is it at the country level intersection? Is it because you said so? Aboutmovies (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Radio stations in the United States" is the trunk of the category tree. Anything below that is a branch. The country level is the parent because there are vast differences in how radio stations operate from one country to another — a radio station in the United States is inherently a distinct thing from a radio station in Lithuania, because they aren't governed by the same regulatory body or the same set of licensing requirements, they aren't named in the same way, and they don't even necessarily operate on the same set of frequencies. An FM radio station in Lithuania can broadcast on 97.4 or 88.6, for example, while an FM radio station in the United States can only broadcast on the odd-numbered decimals. The differences from one country to another are vast, and go far beyond geography alone. Thus, the national level is the "trunk" or "parent" category because it's the lowest level at which the difference from one category to another actually represents a meaningful and significant distinction, not just because of geography alone or because anybody (least of all me) said so.
There are no significant regulatory differences between radio stations in Oregon and those in Pennsylvania, however — the only difference that exists between those two sets is their physical location. Thus, Category:Radio stations in Oregon is a subcategory, because it's a solely geographical distinction — it isn't a parent category, because there isn't a significant distinction between radio stations in Oregon and those in other states. They're licensed by the same regulatory body under the same set of policies and regulations.
So because Category:Radio stations in Oregon is a "branch", not a "trunk", it constitutes a triple intersection to create a further category which crosslinks it to another "branch" of the Category:Radio stations in the United States "trunk". Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fascinating and interesting detail on the differences between country's and their radio stations, which I am well aware of, for instance did you know my wife's radio from Japan operates at a lower frequency band than here in the US (and I started STAR radio which is in a foreign country). Problem is, this really doesn't matter, as your tree theory is just your unsupported opinion (if not please provide some links to a guideline or policy). Whereas the guideline on point to this (i.e. what is a parent cat) is WP:CAT and Wikipedia:Categorization#How to create subcategories does not support your theory. Further,

on the same guideline at Wikipedia:Categorization#Categories do not form a tree notice the encouragement of "intersections". Also, at neither CAT or OVERCAT is there any mention of your "Triple" intersection theory. As to "significant", at both guidelines this is not used when talking about categories themselves, rather it is used for categorizing articles. In that articles should only be placed in a category where the topic of the category is significant to that article. Or to quote An article's categories should reflect the significant (useful) classes to which the subject of the article belongs, or topics to which it relates, under which readers are likely to look if they can't remember or don't know the name of what they are trying to look up. This is why categorization by state is allowed in most instances even though there usually are not "significant" differences between states on most things (or provinces in Canada) or between cities in both states and provinces. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am not directly involved in either project. I give my reasons as a "user". As a "user"; I could easily see myself trying to find "local radio stations of a certain format". Unfortunately, "By city" would be more useful than "by state"...
  1. There is no "List" that might contain the same type of information. Creation of that List might negate the need for this specific category.
  2. There are simply too many College Radio stations in the US to manage within a single category. Manageability is a concern, without "some kind" of sub-division.
  3. As a builder of Navboxes; it does help build a navbox for the Category..."California college radio stations", "Oregon college radio stations", "South Dakota college radio stations" and the non-standard "Radio stations in the Boise, Idaho market"; which I was looking to change to "Idaho college radio stations"...hence, my coming here to find a category as an example...
  4. Oregon Project is taking categories too far with "College Media in Oregon" containing "College Newspapers in Oregon" and "College radio in Oregon", also with connections to multiple points in the radio tree.
  5. Is the Radio project promising to put all radio stations into the appropriate State AND City AND College category?
  6. Finally, the object is to get people to the page. Does this help that? I think so....

One opinion.Mjquin_id (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A radio station doesn't go into the state category if it's already in the city category. And radio stations are already categorized by state-or-city and by format, just not by state-or-city-and-format intersections. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a triple intersection. This is the only category of this type by state. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "College radio stations in the United States" is not a triple intersection. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "College radio stations" + "radio stations in the United States" = two. "College radio stations" + "radio stations in the United States" + "American media by state" = three. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "College radio stations" + "radio stations in political unit" = 2. Otherwise you can go with "College radio stations" + "radio stations in the United States" + "Media by country" = 3. Using a state is just substituting one political entity for another. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all political subdivisions are created equally. There is a sharp difference between national and sub-national subdivisions in every aspect of this project, especially as it regards categorization. - Dravecky (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What project? WPRS, or WikiProject Oregon, or Wikipedia? As there are close to 49 other projects that would likely disagree when it comes to categorization at the sub-national level in the United States as evidenced by the thousands of categories that are state specific (not to mention province specific in Canada). Aboutmovies (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "College radio stations" + "radio stations in country" = 2. "Radio stations in state" = 2 ("Radio stations in country" + "Media by state"). "College radio stations" + "radio stations in state" = "college radio stations" + ("Radio stations in country" + "Media by state") = 3. Viewing it as "College radio stations" + "radio stations in political unit" = 2 would only be valid if Oregon had a completely independent broadcast regulator that had no jurisdiction over any other US state. But it doesn't: its radio stations are licensed by and governed by the Federal Communications Commission of the United States. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then every breakdown by city would also be invalid, as cities do not license stations either. But more importantly, the number of intersections does not matter (otherwise please provide a policy or guideline where this says so). The fact that WP:CAT says "When writing the description for a category try to give it at least two parent categories" to me says we want at least two "intersections" and preferably more. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/upmerge per Vegaswikian. There are no other College radio stations in state categories. --Kbdank71 14:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So if I go make them, then they can all stay right? That does not seem particularly logical (i.e. any category set can be created as long as there are enough of them), and that is not quite what the applicable guidelines in play state. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There was another one, for the US state of Georgia, but it went to CfD and was deleted. Based on that precedent and the best practices of the encyclopedia, I had expected this discussion to move swiftly in the same direction but it seems not enough editors are willing to spend a few minutes involving themselves in the discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that why you were trying to drum up support at WPRS and not at the two other WikiProjects that have banners on the category? Aboutmovies (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left very similar notices on the talk pages for the Oregon and Radio Stations when I took this to CfD. If you'll read what I actually wrote, I was not advocating my position nor trying to rally support, but as a member of the WPRS I was disquieted that there was so little participation in this discussion from the WPRS after previous discussions had generated more comment, both for and against. Consensus requires participation. - Dravecky (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did read what you wrote. The problem is you left 1 message at WP:ORE (none at WP:UNI) and left more than one at WPRS, a project that has the rule against these types of cats, thus it appears the attempt and drumming up participation is not neutral. If you want to drum up participation of the community, you should leave the same messages at all the WikiProjects concerned, otherwise it appears biased. Because consensus does require participation, but is also requires broad participation. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realized why it hadn't occurred to me to include WP:UNI in the discussion--you hadn't added that project tag to the category (and its US parent) until just a few hours before I made the nomination, and thus just after I had last seen the discussion page. I apologize for any inadvertent appearance of campaigning and, for the record, I'm equally disappointed in the low number of folks from WP:ORE who bothered to join the discussion. It seems the slacker/active ratio is similar to that in the WPRS. - Dravecky (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for the record, we don't have "Radio stations in the United States by format and state" subcategories for any other combination of state and format, either. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 14 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:Documentaries by country[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Documentaries by country to Category:Documentary films by country
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match parent category Category:Documentary films and the form used in the subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:54, 7 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:German documentaries[edit]

Category:French documentaries[edit]

Category:Brazilian documentaries[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/rename all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:German documentaries to Category:German documentary films
Propose renaming Category:French documentaries to Category:French documentary films
Propose renaming Category:Brazilian documentaries to Category:Brazilian documentary films
Nominator's rationale: To match the format of the majority of other countries in the category Category:Documentaries by country. Lugnuts (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All All three categories should be renamed per other, similar categories. No need to consider all three separately. Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for grouping them all for me. The last time I tried a group CFD nom, it went horribly wrong! Lugnuts (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. PC78 (talk) 22:32, 7 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:Asian British expatriates in the United States[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 to Category:British expatriates in the United States. Kbdank71 14:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Asian British expatriates in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The definition of "British Asian" is contested, according to British Asian; accordingly, this category is, per WP:BLP, not sustainable and largely seems to be the product of original research. Its creator has already had similar categories deleted. for some reason, I found myself included in it, according to my Talk page- incorrect on two counts, so if that can happen, I suggest its an unusable category. Rodhullandemu 15:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. — Realist2 15:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:British expatriates in the United States Mayumashu (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Mayumashu: this is a triple intersection. I suspect the category is about persons of south Asian descent, who have emigrated from GB to USA: far too complicated for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename (changing vote) -- having seen the later discussion on equivalent English, Scottish, etc. and Black British categories (here, I think that this is a legitimate category, but needs to be better defined. As with Black British, Brtiain has had significant immigration from India and Pakistan (collectively "South Asia") Category:South-Asian British expatriates in the United States would thus be appropriate. However, the category needs to be weeded, checking that persons in it are (1) of this ethnicity (not Arab or Chinese) and (2) that south Asian descent is significant: one person listed has one Punjabi great-grandmother, which is surely too little to count, Peterkingiron (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I'm not persuaded that we need sub-cats for expatriates by ethnicity. PS - What do you mean by "I found myself included in it, according to my Talk page"? Cgingold (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per this I went to my talk page and saw this category at the bottom; but when I edited the page it wasn't there. I suspected template vandalism, but when I saved the page without editing, it had gone. I still have no idea how it got there, because there's nothing in the page history. --Rodhullandemu 12:42, 9 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:Tibetan 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: rename. Kbdank71 14:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Tibetan films to Category:Films about Tibet
Nominator's rationale: Found this languishing in the "Films by country" category scheme. None of these films appear to have been produced by Tibet, if indeed Tibet has a film industry seperate from that of China. Instead, this seems to be a ragtag category for films about Tibet that have been produced in a wide variety of countries, and should be renamed (and recategorized) accordingly. PC78 (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More involve Tibetan exiles in other parts of the Himalayas than ones in Tibet itself, but that is no reason to delete. Johnbod (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Only one of the films in this category appears to be an actual Tibetan production so everything else is miscategorized. I'm not a big fan of "films about Foo" categories but seeing as how these seem to be for the most part documentaries about Tibet in this instance it seems apt. Otto4711 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category contains films by and about Tibetans in exile, and those using the Tibetan language (a subcat). It seems very POV to say you cease to be Tibetan when in exile. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that the "Fooian films" category structure is based on the country of origin of the film, not the nationality or former nationality of those involved in making it. It seems like quite a stretch to classify, for instance, Kundun, a film directed by Martin Scorcese and distributed by a Disney subsidiary, as a "Tibetan film". Setting the inclusion standard at "films made by and about" people from another country, even those in exile from that country, is rather vague if for no other reason than it offers no indication of who within the production or how many needs to be from a particular country. Taken to its logical conclusion, the films of Billy Wilder would be classified as Austrian films because he was born in Austria and emigrated to America to escape Nazi persecution. Schindler's List would be classified as a German film and a Polish film because it's "about" a German who saved the lives of Polish Jews. I have no quarrel with the Tibetan-language subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite. "By" and "about" are two entirely seperate things. I also have no problem with the language subcat, and would equally have no problem with a further Category:Films by Tibetan directors, so long as we have the content to support it. PC78 (talk) 14:01, 9 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:Sega CD games[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sega CD games to Category:Sega Mega-CD games
Nominator's rationale: The Mega-CD name has achieved lasting consensus and is used for the system and its games (Sega Mega-CD and List of Sega Mega-CD games) as well as in the text of various articles, so the category should match. GarrettTalk 06:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, makes perfect sense to me seeing as how "Mega Drive" and "Mega-CD" have been adopted by consensus as the proper names to use in namespace for this particular set of consoles -- Sabre (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Though I will forever know this system as the Sega CD, it makes sense to rename the category to reflect consensus. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:54, 7 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:University of Chicago Graduate School of Business alumni[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:University of Chicago Graduate School of Business alumni to Category:University of Chicago Booth School of Business alumni
Nominator's rationale: The school has been renamed. Dh2 (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, if this is correct. The usual practice for alumni categories is that they follow the college name aftrer amalgamation, change of name etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match current title of corresponding article. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - conforms to existing standard. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:42, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_7&oldid=1074801257"