Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 15 October 17 >

October 16[edit]

Category:Military academies[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 subcats of Category:Military academies to Category:Military academies of Foo . Kbdank71 13:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Indian military academies to Category:to be determined
Propose renaming Category:Military academies of South Korea to Category:to be determined
Propose renaming Category:United States military academies to Category:to be determined
Nominator's rationale: Discuss. These three categories are representative of three different naming schemes in the parent Category:Military academies. Most are in the form of "Fooian military academies" but this appears to be the exception to the general rule of Category:Education by country, Category:Universities and colleges by country and so forth. I suggest rename to "Military academies in Foo" to align with the other "by country" categories. Otto4711 (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Military academies in Foo" per Category:Education by country etc. Occuli (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Military academies of Foo. This is not the primary problem here. What is, is that the US cat, alone (I think) among these categories, mixes military schools for young children, with professional colleges for mid-career officers - the meaning of "military academies" everywhere except the US. These categories - except the US one - are more military than educational, and should follow the military convention, which seems to be "of Foo". Really schools for kids, colleges for college-age people, and advanced professional academies should be split out. Apart from age, the criterion should be whether you pay the college, or the army pays you, and whether you are able to leave at will without the Military Police coming after you. More use should be made of Category:Staff Colleges - I note the average age of students at the U.S. Army War College is 45. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Military academies of Foo. This also avoids potential confusion with the United States Military Academy (West Point) and clarifies that this is a category about military academies in general. Alansohn (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Military academies of Foo per above. AdjustShift (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:Military academies of Foo, but this should be purged of schools for children of military personnel (Placed in a separate category). In Great Britain, we have one college (Sandhurst) for army officer training, but there is a separate establishment (Staff College) for training middle-ranking officers for higher command. I think the Nacvy and air force have parallel establsihments. However since we only have one of each, thyey will not need categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are several more articles than that, for various specialist establishments, and Category:Military training establishments of the United Kingdom should be integrated into this tree somehow, as all the other countries pile in a wide range of establishments. Johnbod (talk) 19:48, 18 October 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:Schools in Wellington[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:Schools in the Wellington Region. Kbdank71 13:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Schools in Wellington to Category:Schools in Wellington Region
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category seems to be being used for schools in the entire Wellington Region, not just for those in Wellington City. This either needs winnowing, with those removed being put in a new category for the region, or simply renaming. The latter seems more sensible for the time being. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - Category:Schools in the Wellington Region may be better still, but there is at least one further category currently of the form Category:X in Wellington Region which would then need changing. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 17 October 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:Secondary schools in Wellington[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:Secondary schools in the Wellington Region. Kbdank71 13:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Secondary schools in Wellington to Category:Secondary schools in Wellington Region
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As above, this category seems to be being used for schools in the entire Wellington Region, not just for those in Wellington City. This either needs winnowing, with those removed being put in a new category for the region, or simply renaming. The latter seems more sensible for the time being. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - Category:Secondary schools in the Wellington Region may be better still, but there is at least one further category currently of the form Category:X in Wellington Region which would then need changing. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 17 October 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:Public transport in Wellington[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:Public transport in the Wellington Region. Kbdank71 13:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Public transport in Wellington to Category:Public transport in Wellington Region
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As with the two above - in this case it might make more sense to keep this as wellington and create a new supercategory for the region, but renaming is equally plausible. Grutness...wha? 23:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - Category:Public transport in the Wellington Region may be a better title, but there is at least one further category currently of the form Category:X in Wellington Region which would then need changing. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 17 October 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:Fan translated 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: delete, still not a defining characteristic. Kbdank71 13:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fan translated games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A list consisting of games UNOFFICIALLY translated by ROM Hackers. It is not notable and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Most of the pages in this category don't even have a NOTABLE source that these modifications are themselves, notable. This was deleted about a year ago for the same reason I'm proposing now. [1]Newspaper98 (talk) 22:04, 16 October 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:Contagious diseases[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:Infectious diseases (not empty as of today) . Kbdank71 13:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Contagious diseases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not useful, would duplicate Category:Infectious diseases. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:Contagious diseases is empty and Category:Infectious diseases is thoroughly populated. Alansohn (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Duplicate category. Dimadick (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REpopulate -- I think some one must have emptied the category. There is a differnece. Contagious diseases are a subcategory of infectious diseases. Contagious diseases are caught by contact. INfectious diseases can be caught by other measn too. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although it may be tempting to think there is a difference, there really is not. Infectious diseases are "caught"; therefore, they are contagious. Contagious disease redirects to Infectious disease. That article states: "Infectious pathologies are usually qualified as contagious diseases (also called communicable diseases) due to their potentiality of transmission from one person or species to another." Any infection is theoretically transmissible from one person to another if a mixing of the proper body fluid occurs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't that transmissable diseases? 70.55.200.131 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe there is a difference between "transmissible" and "contagious". "Contagious", "infectious", "transmissible", "communicable"—from what I've seen, they are all used pretty loosely and essentially interchangeably. I realise these may not be the best sources, but see here and here for an idea of what I mean. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 21 October 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:2006 Richmond, California city elections[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 13:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2006 Richmond, California city elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little or no chance of expansion. The lead article links together the various candidates' articles and the category is not needed for navigation. Otto4711 (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see why categories over historical events should need expansion. This is pretty good one as categories over electoral histories go. Dimadick (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's not a category about the election, for which there is a single article and unlikely to be any others. It is a category capturing people involved with the election, and categorizing local elected officials and candidates by election will quickly lead to inordinate numbers of such categories being added to every local politician. There is no practical limitation to the number of times a person may stand for local office. To give one concrete example, my own state's Tammy Baldwin has been elected to Congress five time and before that was elected several times to the Wisconsin State Assembly and the Dane County Board of Supervisors. If we fully implemented this categorization scheme, that adds at least ten categories to her list, none of which impart substantive information about her. Otto4711 (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WE do not need categories on local elections to town or even city councils. All we need is a single article on the council. Local politicians are usually NN. The fact that a natioanl politician (who would be notable) previously served at a local level is no reason to have a category. Categories are navigations aids, not bullet points summarising a person's career. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 18 October 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:Richmond City Council[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. Richmond is the only city that has a subcat of Category:United States city councils, every other city has an article. The council cat may be more comprehensive, but this is sitting in the people branch of the category tree. Kbdank71 13:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Richmond City Council to Category:Richmond, California city councilmembers
Nominator's rationale: Merge - per not categorizing politicians based on current vs. former status. Otto4711 (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I agree that categories using this division should be avoided. Dimadick (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REverse merge -- These are essentially duplicate categories, but the City Council one is likely to prove more comprehensive. Nevertheless, it is my view that local politicians are generally NN, and I would be happy if the whole tree and all articles in it (except Richmond City Council itself) were deleted. Since there are other places called Richmond, presumably a disambiguator will be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 18 October 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:Members of Thames Ditton Lawn Tennis Club[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 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Members of Thames Ditton Lawn Tennis Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - membership in this club is not a defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – indeed it is not a defining characteristic. Occuli (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that membership is defining. I will reconsider if reliable and verifiable sources can be provided to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hilarious. Apart from Peter Ellaway, whose article does not mention this, the other three are probably not notable either (all same author). Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless their membership has attracted some notability of its own, the potential use of this category escapes me. Dimadick (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify in article on club (as "notable members") then delete, assuming that the club is notable enough to have an article -- and I doubt it should. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 18 October 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:Aosdána[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 13:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Aosdána to Category:Aosdána members
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category is for members and the name should reflect that. In the alternative, should this association not be deemed sufficiently defining for categorization, listify and delete. Otto4711 (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination seems confused - Aosdána is plural. "Aosdána members" makes about as much sense as "Presidents of the United States members". I do not think Wikipedia should pander to the illiteracy of its readers. the skomorokh 09:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article Aosdána itself then is confused as it contains "Some members of Aosdána" ... Occuli (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. "People of the arts members" does not sound that odd to me.Dimadick (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't claim to be a native speaker of either language, but that does sound decidedly strange. the skomorokh 23:31, 17 October 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:Halaal food[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 13:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Halaal food to Category:Halal food
Nominator's rationale: To match Halal, moved from Halaal months ago. jnestorius(talk) 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename for consistency between parent article and cat. Alansohn (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is of course an Arabic word whose transliteration into Roman letters may vary, but the usual spelling in England is Halal. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 18 October 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:Political scandals 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: relisted on 23rd. Kbdank71 14:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Indian political scandals to Category:to be determined
Propose renaming Category:Political scandals in Italy to Category:to be determined
Propose renaming Category:Political scandals of South Africa to Category:to be determined
Nominator's rationale: Discuss for uniformity - these categories are representative of the three current naming formats in the parent Category:Political scandals by country. We should pick one and rename all categories to match. Once a name format is decided upon I'll nominate the remaining non-compliant categories for rename. Otto4711 (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: Having given this some more thought, I'm inclined to rule out "Fooian political scandals," because that seems to convey the subtle implication that the scandals in question "belong" to that country -- but as I've pointed out, many scandals involve more than one country. So that appears to leave us with "Political scandals in Country Xyz" -- unless somebody can come up with another option. Cgingold (talk) 09:39, 23 October 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:Psychological science fiction 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 13:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Psychological science fiction films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - the category as formulated is vague and over-arching and could encompass vast numbers of films The term "psychological science fiction" is in use in the literature, but I am unable to find sources that define it as the category does, raising the issue of original research. See also this recent CFD for a similar category for anime and manga. Otto4711 (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If I get that straight, any science fiction film featuring elements of drama, horror or various dystopias would fit the definition. I think this would only leave out the comedies. Overly vague definition and curious thinking process as well. Dimadick (talk) 16:58, 17 October 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:Characters in the works of Robert E. Howard[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 13:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Characters in the works of Robert E. Howard to Category:Robert E. Howard characters
Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match all other sibling categories. Otto4711 (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 16:59, 17 October 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:Conan the Barbarian writers[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 13:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Conan the Barbarian writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization of writers by project. Otto4711 (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also template {{Conan}} has a section for Conan writers. this place is more maintainable than a category. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:45, 17 October 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:Italian communities in the UK[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 13:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Italian communities in the UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Arbitary categorisation. What constitutes an "italian community" is not codified, and is POV. Also a breach of Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – there should certainly be some evidence somewhere to justify membership of the category. Neither Gower Peninsular nor Westminster even mentions Italy. Is there an article on Italian communities in the UK? Occuli (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably one made by that user yes. I should add I also object to this category as it could set a precident: what's next? Irish communities in the UK, Black communities in the UK, Pakistani communities in the UK? It's not good for the project to start labelling settlements according to ethnic group - some places could have hundreds of categories. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why stop there though? We could have Anglo-Saxon communities, Somali, neo-Viking. I jest, but major cities could have hundreds of categories, based on original research here. Greater Manchester alone has 66 refugee nationalities within its boundaries. Do we have 66 categories? Nope, that's bad practice. It's also worth pointing out that places like Manchester are not "Italian communities". It's a city in England; the category is unclear.--Jza84 |  Talk  00:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is perhaps an aspect of overcategorisation here. Categories should be useful to a reader, but if there was proliferation of this kind of category they'd clog up articles and would be useless. Nev1 (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep The argument based on overcategorization is meaningless, as a rather simple definition is available. Reading Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality shows that neither gender, nor race nor sexuality are even addressed here. In the US, there are multiple categories for communities based on ethnicity, supported by census data. If the same condition is satisfied here there is no policy argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's nationality, rather than ancestry or ethnicity. Note too that that source contradicts the articles in the category in question. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A bunch of similar cats - overseas Turkish communities or something, which included Peckham & many other random suburbs, were either deleted or severely restricted a while back. Oddly none of the classic Italian locales Clerkenwell & Soho in particular are included. I think Chelsea being there is a joke about the football club's players. I doubt if any of the articles contain relevant material. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's not a Turkish enclave - it's part of Britain. Peckham had some history of having some people with a link with/heritage from what is now Turkey. But other peoples live there, so why just choose one group? Do we have evidence these are Turkish nationals, or are we just guessing? I am the only one seeing why these categories have big problems of POV and OR with them? --Jza84 |  Talk  10:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're not! Thanks for the link, Occuli. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This would have to be a category of articles on Italians communities in particular places, but I doubt there are many identifiably significant Italian communities. I ssupect some one has been misusing categories (which are intended to be a navigation tool) as a mkeans of listing places where there are Italians. My impression is that in most places communities of Italian descent are now English speaking and well-intergrated. Certainly we cannot have categories on every ethnic community in every city. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 18 October 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 ecologists[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:Collective pseudonyms. Kbdank71 13:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Fictional ecologists to Category:Fictional scientists
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Category contains only 1 article Magioladitis (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Collective pseudonyms and remove from the fictional scientists tree. The subject is not a fictional character as the term is used on Wikipedia but is instead a collective pseudonym used by a handful of scientists. Otto4711 (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 16 October 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:Monaco Grand Prix drivers[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 per discussion here and at the wikiproject. Kbdank71 13:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Monaco Grand Prix drivers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia_talk:F1#Category:Monaco_Grand_Prix_drivers for reasoning. Useless, doesn't add much to encyclopedia. D.M.N. (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It would include nearly all GP drivers. Occuli (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete D.M.N. and Occuli say it all. Overly generalized classification. LeaveSleaves talk 17:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Monaco Grand Prix is one of the best known and most prestigious road races in the world, and forms the Triple Crown of Motorsport together with the Indianapolis 500 and the 24 Hours of Le Mans. Both of the other races have well-defined categories for participants and/or winners of these races. Arguments from being "useless" are worthless arguments from a policy perspective. Per WP:CLN, categories AND lists are designed to co-exist to allow different readers to navigate through articles in the way they each find most expedient, and this is no exception here. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - categorizing drivers on the basis of simply participating in a particular race is overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any support under Wikipedia policy for this opinion? Alansohn (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some reason you're only asking me this question and not anyone else who's !voted to delete? Otto4711 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've addressed the responses of all the previous participants in my initial response. Your's was the first I hadn't addressed, but you are correct that it is not the only one that offers no policy justification for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a practically indiscriminate category. Readro (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn, participation at this GP is particularly notable, outside of general F1 participation. (as with the Indy 500, 24h of LeMans, Daytona 500, Paris-to-Dakar, Baja 1000) In the past, drivers and teams targetted on just racing this event. (though no longer, with the rules the way they are in F1) 70.55.200.131 (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, & others (but keep winners below). Johnbod (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to category:Grand Prix drivers, unless this is limited to the period before the Monaco event became just one event on the F1 tour. In that case, it should be renamed to "Monaco Grand Prix drivers before 19xx", the date being when it was taken into the F1 tour; given a capnote added expalining the significance of the date and a cross-reference for more recent drivers; and purged of all more recent participants. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:36, 18 October 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:Monaco Grand Prix winners[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: keep. Would be better as an annotated list, but hey CLN says we can have a less useful category, so wait a sec, CLN is just a guideline. Hmmm.... Kbdank71 13:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Monaco Grand Prix winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: See Wikipedia_talk:F1#Category:Monaco_Grand_Prix_drivers for reasoning. Useless, doesn't add much to encyclopedia. D.M.N. (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Keep per Alansohn (who could perhaps add the bit about the Triple Crown to the cat description - I was not myself aware of this and it does distinguish Monaco from the many other F1 races). (It is surprising that there is not a 'World Champions' category though.) Occuli (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Better suited to a list, where the year of victory can be given. This already exists at Monaco Grand Prix so this category is not needed. AlexJ (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Monaco Grand Prix is one of the best known and most prestigious road races in the world, and forms the Triple Crown of Motorsport together with the Indianapolis 500 and the 24 Hours of Le Mans. Both of the other races have well-defined categories for participants and/or winners of these races. Arguments from being "useless" are worthless arguments from a policy perspective. The potential benefit of a list in including dates is a flaw in the entire category system and is better suited to argue for deletion of the entire category structure in Wikipedia, with no relevance to this category whatsoever. Per WP:CLN, categories AND lists are designed to co-exist to allow different readers to navigate through articles in the way they each find most expedient, and this is no exception here. Alansohn (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - winning this race strikes me as being sufficiently prestigious to warrant categorization. While of course WP:CLN in no way mandates this category, I agree that it is a useful complement to a chronological list of winners. Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn, participation at this GP is particularly notable, outside of general F1 participation. (as with the Indy 500, 24h of LeMans, Daytona 500, Paris-to-Dakar, Baja 1000) In the past, drivers and teams targetted on just racing this event. (though no longer, with the rules the way they are in F1) 70.55.200.131 (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of Triple Crown, but we don't want such cats for all Grand Prix races - lists in the articles or separately are enough. Johnbod (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify -- This is merely another kind of awards. A list category has the merit of placing the holders in chronological order (rather than alphabetic), unless an article already exists in the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 18 October 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:Controversial Christian denominations[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 13:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial Christian denominations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - This is a hopelessly subjective category. I submit that every single Christian denomination could be considered "controversial". Much like beauty, it's all in the eye of the beholder. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, this is just a POV attack category, not a meaningful classification. Postdlf (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it is very very difficult to have just a few denominations listed in the top Category:Christian denominations because if anyone is listed there, then everyone wants to be listed there directly also… because "we are a Christian denomination" – but having hundreds of denominations listed at the top level does not people find the page they are looking for.--Carlaude (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Roman Catholic church and probably many other major denominations fall into the first two proposed categories. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename The old saying that "A religion is a cult with an army" seems relevant here. Every religious group in world history has been the subject of controversy at some point in time, and those in this category structure are no exception. To label and group them based on their perceived controversial status without reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim seems to present POV issues. I am willing to consider an appropriate rename that groups these categories together. Alansohn (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:POV; likely to be used as an attack category. I would have included Category:Mormon fundamentalism, but it's not included. That just shows that contents will differ depending on the person. The suggested renames are equally problematic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If any religious denomination with "bad press" is included, we have two millennia of written sources to include just about everything from Arianism and Catharism to Traditionalist Catholics and Sedevacantism. Where to draw the line? Dimadick (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, impossible to have a clearcut definition on this, inherently pov. --Soman (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- whether or not this is an attack category, there is no objective criterion for inclusion or exclusion. It is thus a POV category, and we all have different POVs. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:43, 18 October 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:C-Class Korean cinema articles[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. Empty, and as noted, this category is not populated by either Template:flim or Template:WPKorea. Film doesn't use C classes at all, and WPKorea's C-class articles get added to Category:C-Class Korea-related articles. Recreation permissible if either project begins using this in their templates. Kbdank71 14:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:C-Class Korean cinema articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Speedy deletion has been denied for the most unfathomable of reasons. As I've tried to explain several times now, this category is not used by either WP:FILM or WP:KOREA, consequently it is not populated by either of these project's banner templates and will always remain empty. PC78 (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Film does not support C-Class articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment), but WikiProject Korea does (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea/Assessment). This means that this category could be populated if an article is graded C-Class. It shouldn't be deleted because nothing is presently in it. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because there is no category stucture in place for WP:KOREA task force articles to be categorised by quality. PC78 (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the relatively recent creation of C-Class, it comes as no surprise that there are no C-class Korean cinema articles. Yet. Given the few dozen Category:Start-Class Korean cinema articles, it seems quite likely that there might be an article or two down the road to populate this class, and there's no reason to waste the time deleting and recreating this category. Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, no. There are plenty of C-Class Korea articles, some of which are film-related. But as I have noted above, there is no separarte categorization of Korean task force articles by quality. PC78 (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, yet. Alansohn (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And again, no. There is simply no support for this kind of categorization by the WikiProject and its banner template, and to implement it would require a substantial amount of restructuring and upheaval. But since you're not a member of this Wikiproject, why would it even concern you? PC78 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you were only interested in hearing the opinions of people in the WikiProject, then you should have only brought it up at the WikiProject talk page rather than here. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was forced here by the declined speedy which should have been mere uncontroversial housekeeping. I'm not uninterested in the opinions of others, but it is at the discretion of the WikiProject how to categorize articles, and this particular category is not part of that scheme. I honestly don't know why people are having such a hard time with this. PC78 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • All articles within a project should have a quality assessment. That assessment is encyclopedia wide and any editor can use the checklists to determine the class that an article falls into. The project importance is something that is optional. I believe that the correct statement here is that the film project has decided to not rate by importance of the articles. By default they all have a quality assessment at the working group level that is inherited by default from the project level. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your analysis here is incorrect. Article importance is not part of the equation here. PC78 (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This concerns article quality and not article importance. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you agreeing with me or not? You were the first person to mention "article importance", and it has nothing whatsoever to do with this category or discussion. PC78 (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right then, it seems that my efforts to convince people that this category is genuinely redundant and unused have failed, so I shall attempt to give it another go. What we have here is a bot created category that was never required and has never been used by either WP:FILM or WP:KOREA, and its deletion should be a straightforward case of uncontroversial housekeeping, which I have requested as a member of and on behalf of both projects. I think we've already established that WP:FILM has opted out of using C-Class, hence there is no code in {{Film}} that would ever add an article to this category. WP:KOREA on the other hand does use C-Class, but does not categorize articles at this level, i.e. articles are not subcategorized beyond Category:C-Class Korea-related articles, so again there is no code in {{WikiProject Korea}} that will add an article to this category. Please see Talk:My Sassy Girl for an example of a film article rated C-Class by WP:KOREA, and note how this category is not used. It's not the case that this category is empty simply because there are no C-Class Korean film articles, because there are; it's empty because there is no support for this category by either WikiProject, and therefore it will always remain empty. PC78 (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do also note Category:C-Class Korean military history articles, a comparable category which, like this one, was unused by its parent WikiProjects, and was speedied as uncontroversial housekeeping. PC78 (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea? You might suggest to them that they can change Template:WikiProject Korea so that when the "film task force" is added to a talk page, the article will be automatically categorized in these Korean film categories. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't raised the matter with the rest of the WikiProject, simply because I didn't think it would be of much interest (if that wasn't too presumptuous of me). To make this category viable would require a substantial rewrite of the banner template code, and the implementation of other such categories for the Project's other work groups. I'm not sure that I see much merit in doing this; it would require much effort in return for minimal gain. Should the WikiProject decide in the future to implement such a categorization scheme, then it will be little effort to recreate this category, but hypothetical future scenarios should not provide an obstacle to deletion now. For what it's worth, though, I shall post brief message on the Project's talk page linking to this discussion. PC78 (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has been raised there. So far, no shouting that adding C class would be a mistake. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be under the misaprehension that WP:KOREA does not have C-Class, which is not the case and at any rate not the issue here. Are you seriously suggesting that a WikiProject (which you have no involvement with) restructure itself to accomodate an erroneous and unused category, rather than simply delete said category which could be recreated in seconds should it become necessary in the future? PC78 (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is a simple housekeeping chore -- removing a category that by will never be used by the current project structure. If at some point in the future WikiProject Korea does a massive rewrite of its template to include subdivision classes, this category can be easily recreated. Until then, it is pointless. — CactusWriter | needles 20:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a note, {{WikiProject Nevada}} took a few minutes to rewrite. Seems that there are a series of templates that can be used. {{WP Australia}} is an example of using these templates for a complex project. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rewriting the template and introducing new categories is an internal matter for the WikiProject, and should have no bearing here. PC78 (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you look at the project page, it says to include an article in the project by using this template, {{WikiProject Korea}}. Unless that template has some oddly written code, the class parameter is passed on to all subprojects or working groups that the article falls into. So since the parent group supports C, then it is reasonable to have the categories setup since the main template should automatically create articles for it. Empty categories in the assessment area are not problems. I also wonder how the statement that this class is not supported by the working group? Is it because there is nothing included in the assessment table? If so I believe that is simply a false argument since the code that creates those tables only lists an assessment class if there are entries. Are we also saying that they don't support A class or FA class articles since those are also not included in the assessment table? I'm willing to change if my analysis is wrong here, but I need to see the case and that was not presented above. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I guess the template has some oddly written code then, because the class parameter in {{WikiProject Korea}} is not passed onto the project's various work groups; this should be evident if you have looked at the template code and the project's category scheme. I thought I had already made it clear that this category is not populated by the project banner template? With regards to Category:FA-Class Korean cinema articles (and the rest), these categories, whether empty or not, are populated by {{Film}}, but they are not populated by {{WikiProject Korea}}, because, as I've tried to explain, the template is simply not set up to categorize at this level. I hope that satisfies your concerns, because I honestly don't know what else I can say. With the utmost respect, I'm a member of both WikiProjects, I'm familiar with the template code of each project banner, I'm familiar with the assessment and categorization schemes of both projects, and I'm well aware that categories such as this are not deleted simply because they happen to be empty on a given day (which for the last time is not the case here), and the lengths I'm having to go to to push through a bit of non-controversial housekeeping are frankly beyond ridiculous. PC78 (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question It would be silly to ask "why does not Film project have c-class articles?" --Caspian blue 03:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The film project chose not to support that class. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:01, 22 October 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:Conan the Barbarian 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: upmerge. Kbdank71 14:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Conan the Barbarian films to Category:all parents except Fantasy films by series
Nominator's rationale: Merge - only two entries in the category with no likelihood of expansion in the near future. Two films doesn't really constitute a "series" and two articles vs one subcat in each of the parent categories is not an unwieldly expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:07, 16 October 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.

Food product brands[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 to rename as nominated, but there does seem to be a consensus to begin a clean up to reduce confusion. I do suggest a future nomination will be helpful, though, once the clean up is well under way and we have a proposal of what wording we are going to want consistent across all categories. So this result should not be seen as in any way precluding a future nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brand name food products to Category:Food brands

Category:Brand name alcohol products to Category:Alcoholic beverage brands
Category:Brand name beverage products to Category:Beverage brands
Category:Brand name breads to Category:Bread brands
Category:Brand name chocolate to Category:Chocolate brands
Category:Brand name condiments to Category:Condiment brands
Category:Brand name confectionery to Category:Confectionery brands
Category:Brand name cookies to Category:Cookie brands
Category:Brand name crackers to Category:Cracker brands
Category:Brand name dairy products to Category:Dairy product brands
Category:Brand name desserts to Category:Dessert brands
Category:Brand name diet products to Category:Diet product brands
Category:Brand name frozen desserts to Category:Frozen desserts brands
Category:Brand name hot dogs to Category:Hot dog brands
Category:Brand name poultry to Category:Poultry brands
Category:Brand name snack foods to Category:Snack food brands
Category:Brand name soups to Category:Soup brands
Category:Brand name yoghurts to Category:Yoghurt brands
Rename: The Foo brands formulation is prevalent throughout Category:Brands and its subcategories with the sole exception of foods and beverages. I also prefer this form as it is more compact and allows natural sorting in the Category:Brands branch. Note: related CFR underway for Category:Brand name potato chips, potato crisps, and other potato-based snack foods.-choster (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All - I gave this category tree some very serious thought a couple of months back, but didn't pursue any changes because well, I just haven't had the energy to take it on. The way I see things, except for these sub-categories, Category:Brands has got it all wrong, because it mostly conflates brands (or brand names) with products. (To illustrate the difference: for instance, Nabisco is a brand name which appears on a whole array of products.) I realize that it complicates things somewhat, but our objective here should be first and foremost to get it right -- not merely to simplify things. We need to clarify and preserve the distinction between brands and products, not blur it further. (And yes, I'm suggesting that an awful lot of those other sub-cats need to be renamed to reflect the fact that they are for products.) Notified (some) category creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No doubt some cleanup is required. But the distinction you make is somewhat artificial. An Oreo is a kind of cookie--a product-- but clearly it is also a brand of cookie, else why so many Oreo varieties? An Eggo, simply, is a frozen waffle, but in fact it is not only a whole line of different waffle varieties, but as the article the Eggo name is used for "French toast sticks, muffin tops, a breakfast cereal, syrup, and 'Toaster Swirlz,' and there is even an Eggo (breakfast cereal) article. It is natural for a successful brand to be extended to related products; the fuzziness of the articles arises from real world fuzziness.-choster (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mildly opposed. I'm the creator of many of these categories, and I'm not overly fussy about what they're called. I do agree, though, that most of the articles in these categories are about products, not brands -- and to throw in another point of confusion, some of the food-and-drink categories also confuse brands and companies, as well (see Category:Tea, in particular). My main concern has been separating articles about purely commercial food products from those about generic foodstuffs, because the focus and notability criteria for the two kinds of articles are so different (compare Fig Newton with Lebkuchen, for instance). Anyway, I'll go along with any Wikipedia-wide consensus about how to categorize the commercial product articles. Dr.frog (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, editors do confuse terms. Since products have a category structure, would you be opposed to allowing this rename and then moving out the products into the correct categories? Or even better, moving the products out now? The only real confusion should be when the company, product and brand are the same. Or is it better to withdraw the nomination knowing that someone will be doing some cleanup and then they can bring back what is left for a rename or deletion? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 12:53, 16 October 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:Antiheroes[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: SPEEDY DELETE, recreation of content deleted by prior CFD. Postdlf (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Antiheroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "Antihero" is a very subjective term, and who could fit as an antihero is very much up for dispute. On List of fictional antiheroes, this is moderated by having a reliable source calling each addition 'antihero'. As a category, I don't see that happening, and it will likely just have people add their favorite characters as antiheroes, and perhaps, people removing them because they disagree with the classification (as many have attempted to do on the List article) CyberGhostface (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vague and nearly un-definable. At times, even Batman has been an "anti-hero". Same goes for most any "vigilante" character. Zorro and The Scarlet Pimpernel immediately come to mind. - jc37 12:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I find the sources, I will add these entries to the list and the category. Alansohn (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is the problem? If the character is an antihero, add the category. If someone objects, produce a reference to a reliable source. If no reliable source is to be found, the article is removed. I created this category because it's completely deficient for an encyclpaedia not to categorise characters by roles. The argument that it is "vague and nearly un-definable" to categorise Ferdinand Bardamu for example as an antihero stretches the bounds of credibility. Category:Protagonists, Category:Femmes fatale, Category:Sidekicks ought all to be created and populated via responsible references to reliable sources. the skomorokh 15:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The corresponding article List of fictional anti-heroes, includes some 100 entries, every single one of which is backed by a reliable and verifiable source supporting the claim. The nominator's claim is that the fact that categories cannot have sources is a valid justification to delete this category. The problem is that it is a fantastic argument to dismantle the entire category structure, and has no specific relevance to this category. That anybody could any any category (or anything else) to any article is a fundamental design aspect (and flaw) of all of Wikipedia. As the nominator has offered not a single policy justification for deletion, and as this strong defining characteristic is reliably sourced for the entries included, there is no valid argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 15:23, 16 October 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:St John Youth NZ[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 13:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:St John Youth NZ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category only has one page in it, which itself is of dubious notability. No real chance of cat becoming better populated. Helenalex (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as the nom says. Occuli (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the creator probably does not understand what categories are for. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:46, 18 October 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:California photographers[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 13:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:California photographers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, overcategorization. There are no other state-specific subcategories of Category:American photographers, nor should there be. The one entry currently in Category:California photographers highlights how silly it is to intersect this career with subnational locations; he went to school in California for another career, and is described as being "best known for wilderness photography of the Florida landscape," and is placed in Category:People from Missouri, Category:People from Kansas City, and Category:People from Florida. Postdlf (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom. Occuli (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & many similar categories. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 17 October 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:California Cinematographers[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 13:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:California Cinematographers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete, overcategorization. This would be the only subcategory of Category:American cinematographers, had it actually been included in that logical parent category. No reason to intersect this occupation by state, as cinematography is not such a localized career. Upmerge as appropriate, but the one entry is already in Category:American cinematographers. Postdlf (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom. Occuli (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though nom is surely wildly off the mark saying "cinematography is not such a localized career"! "Hollywood cinematographers" wouild make more sense, but wouldn't that be nearly all of them? Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - overcategorization. AdjustShift (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- since Hollywood, the home of the film industry is in California, do not most the the Awerican Cinematographers belong in this category? This suggests that the answer should be Populate from the American parent, leaving that parent for non-californians. The alternative would be Upmerge. Which solution to adopt should be for editors, who deal with the subject. Can some one place this on a film-related AFD list, so that we get some more informed content? Peterkingiron (talk) 20:57, 18 October 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_October_16&oldid=1138391426"