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. — ξxplicit 01:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only three places have ever held the Sugar Bowl- and I hope the next is a Superdome replacement not another Georgia Dome-type situation- this category is both useless (All information and links are in the Sugar Bowl article) and unlikely to ever expand any faster by more than an entry every other decadea or so. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support Merge to match name of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, because different subject e.g. in English language in the Netherlands education is only one section of four sections. The other three sections deals with knowledge and usage of English. Andries (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is no distinction between the terms in article space since one term redirects to the other. The distinction is subtle enough to not require a separate article. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A larger problem is how the articles are split between the two categories. There has been no attempt to make one a subtype of the other. There are many ESL articles in the first, when really they should be in the second if this is the meaning of the categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment English mother tongue/first language education would fit in the first category but not the second. 70.29.209.121 (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment where would English education as English mother tongue go? There have been debates on English teaching methodology for English education for people without any other language, like the "whole language" versus phonics debates, etc. (ie, where did you go to school for English when you were 6 years old? ESL?) 70.29.209.121 (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am far from sure these are the same thing. As an Englishman was was taught in my native English language. On the other hand, in India "English-medium education" is regarded as the gateway to a well-paid career. In that case, English is the main medium of instruction, but may, for many pupils, not be their first language. Nevertheless, this is soemthing quite different from teaching English as a foreign (or second) language. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). If it's true that the second is a subtype of the first, there are many miscategorized articles in the categories. There are many articles about ESL in the first category. The fact that they are being treated the same in practical terms is what led me to believe they were duplicates. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename all. — ξxplicit 01:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to consolidate; see previous discussion at CfD 2007/Dec/14" where the "Inland Empire (California)" appellation was adopted for the San Bernardino-Riverside metropolitan area.- choster 22:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one member after the others were deleted at AfD. Fences&Windows 17:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The AfD was clear - nothing salvageable in all but one of the member articles. As things stand there's little chance of this category expanding beyond a single entry. andy (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty (no mainspace content). I nearly said that I was unsure about this one, but I was uncertain whether that was acceptable in theory. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as housecleaning after the AfD decision. This one's a ghost town thanks to that decision. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too small. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 21:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The category only contains articles about works featuring fictional ballerinas, rather than articles about fictional ballerinas themselves (contrast with Category:Fictional detectives, which contains articles about the fictional detectives themselves). Alternatives to deletion include renaming the category to (something like) Category:Works featuring fictional ballerinas (although I couldn't find any other "Works featuring" categories, or keeping the category and replacing the current contents with articles about actual fictional ballerinas (although I couldn't find any of those either). DH85868993 (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and do not rename to a "Works featuring..." category per the rationale here. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We have Category:Ballet films which covers 2/3, and the 3rd is only a paper toy.... Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable intersection of a profession and "fictional character". Debresser (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:upmerge to Category:People from Adelaide. Contents of category (either the text commentary or the articles included) available upon request for those who want to work on creating an article.Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletion There is no evidence to indicate the notability of the Category:Old Adelaide Family. The page is a random list of old money families, some of which aren't even from Adelaide. Hazir (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does one "indicate the notability of a category"? (I've never seen a category that indicated its notability.) Can you provide an example please? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The page is a random list of old money families" - On what do you base that opinion? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, without prejudice to the creation of a more appropriately-titled category if there is evidence that an encyclopedic and properly-referenced head article can be written on the topic. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Can you explain to me why there needs to be a head article? I know of dozens of categories that don't have head articles.
a) Why does a category need a head article?
b) Why do so many categories not have head articles?
Upmerge to Category:People from Adelaide and make into a referenced list (which it already is, bar references). (I haven't noticed any other such categories for any city.) Occuli (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into an article - as an administrative comment, this should be an article (including a list), not a category; a category page is not the place for the list and text which this page contains. I am dubious about whether the article would survice AfD, but I'm willing to give the main author (User:Pdfpdf) time to improve it. I also draw peoples' attention to a discussion I had with Pdfpdf at User_talk:Peter_Ballard/Archive_3#Category:Old Adelaide Family(ies) - (originally "OAF"), in which he offers references for the term "Old Adelaide Family" (which I disputed, but again I'm willing to give him time to develop it) and offers some interesting ideas on what direction the article might take. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an ever better idea. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The concept of there being old, founding families exists for every city in the world. "Old Chicago Family" gets 3x the hits that "Old Adelaide Family" does. I can't find any references to suggest that the concept is particularly special as applied to Adelaide. I'm not averse to giving the original author a chance to work on an article but given its highly dubious notability claims, such a draft should surely be developed on the author's own user page. Hazir (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The concept of there being old, founding families exists for every city in the world." - Yes. What's your point?
"Old Chicago Family" gets 3x the hits that "Old Adelaide Family" does." - Yes. What's your point? (Note: Chicago has a population of "more than 2.8 million people" and is anchor to the world's 26th largest metropolitan area with over 9.5 million people across three states." - I'm surprised that it's only 3x.)
"I can't find any references to suggest that the concept is particularly special as applied to Adelaide." - Who/what is claiming that "the concept is particularly special as applied to Adelaide"? (Not me.)
"I'm not averse to ... " - Thank you.
"but given its highly dubious notability claims" - What claims? I'm not aware of any claims, dubious or otherwise.
So you concede then, that the article/category is not notable? Hazir (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Errrrrr. Pardon? Short answer: No. Please reread what I have written. (I am puzzled how you could come to that conclusion.) A brief summary of part of what I DID say is: 1) It is a category, not an article. 2) I have made NO claims about notabality, neither one way nor the other.
So: a) I do NOT "concede" that it is an article/category. b) I have not stated, and therefore do NOT "concede", anything about notability.
I have now asked you a number of questions, some of them twice. Could you please provide some answers?
With thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to spend half of my day on this. Simply put a category does need to be notable or at least meaningful. Otherwise I could just create a category "Cool people according to Hazir" and just start adding people who I think are cool to it. Anyhow, it is my position that a random laundry list of old Adelaide families is of no encyclopedic value. Hazir (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you initiate a discussion, it behoves you to explain yourself, and supply supporting evidence.
If you have no intention of doing so, then perhaps you should not initiate the discussion? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply stating your opinion without any supporting evidence or reasoned argument is inadequate.
"Simply put a category does need to be notable or at least meaningful." - Well, this category is most certainly meaningful.
And I ask you yet again, What is the definition of a "notable category"?
Until I know what the definition and criteria are, I am unable to provide the evidence you are demanding. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Why is it necessary for me to provide supporting evidence when you are providing none? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyhow, it is my position that a random laundry list of old Adelaide families is of no encyclopedic value." - That sounds very much like "WP:I just don't like it". To quote "I just don't like it and its converse I just like it are not arguments to use in talk page discussions." Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in case it was not clear, (for what it's worth), it is my position that it is NOT "a random laundry list", and that it IS of "encyclopedic value". Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When somebody supplies a pointer to the relevant part of the MoS that says a category has to be notable, and defines what a "notable category" is, I will address those concerns. However, all I've seen so far about this category is: "WP:I just don't like it". Pdfpdf (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert text to a list articleList of old Adelaide families then upmerge category -- This is unsatisfactory as a category, because there is no adequate citerion as to what should or should not be included. At present this is NOT a category, but a hybrid of a category and an article. The standard method for identifying where articles are needed is to have a list, with redlinks. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
However, that suggests that if "adequate citeria as to what should or should not be included" are added to the category, then it will become acceptable. Is that the case?
"At present this is ... a hybrid" - What needs to change for it to become a category?
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 20:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article and CfR below —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 20:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep, but hide. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is the purpose of this category - is it only to remove uncategorized templates? If so, it serves no real purpose. noq (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is to gather together articles (if any) on musical groups which are yet to be categorised, in the hope that this deficiency will be remedied. (Yesterday there was one, so I categorised it.) Occuli (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So someone goes to an article and adds it to Uncategorised musical groups instead of a more specific group? Why not just miss the the middle bit out? noq (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There does seem to be some redundancy here... If categorisation goes through a template, then I can agree with this, but if it is by hand, then delete. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I regularly categorize articles that I find in this category - no matter what/who adds them. And I consider that acitivity of mine useful. The fact that articles are added looks like proof to me that the category fulfills some sort of need, so keep until a better method for gathering uncategorized musical groups articles is established. BNutzer (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but hide. This is a maintenance category, and in principle it sounds like a good idea provided that it is tagged with {{hiddencat}}. As a maintenance category, it should be visible to editors who choose to view hidden categories, but not general readers. If it's not hidden, then delete. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)11:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but hide as above. HidingT 13:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Just about as much work to categorize pages in this than it would be to properly categorize them. I can understand keeping this sort of category if there were numerous entries, but the fact it is empty means the number of potential pages for this category is manageable so it probably makes more sense just to categorize properly. Also if we want to be technical, this no longer becomes true the moment someone adds the category to the page (even if it becomes hidden, it will still be categorized). VegaDark (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 10:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but hide per BHG and Hiding. I see this category as analogous to (the subcats of) Category:Uncategorised people, i.e. a place where editors like me, who know enough to recognise an uncategorised article about a musical group, but not necessarily enough to categorise it properly (e.g. I'm not familiar with the distinctions between the different variations of rock music) can place the article to bring it to the attention of other editors who do know enough to categorise it properly. DH85868993 (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Housekeeping is always good. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename, as disambiguation. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but it's already disambiguated. The proposal is to change the dab name based on the main article name.- choster 15:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Discussions at WP:India resulted in a consensus not to categorize by caste (see discussion). Another similar category CfD closed as delete. This is over-categorization at best; also verification of who belongs and who doesn't is an issue. There exists a list -- Notable Gouds and that should serve the purpose (although sourcing for that is almost non-existent). -SpacemanSpiff 03:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator's rationale. Verification is tough, because Caste people add all sorts of notables/celebrities to their list. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and linked discussions.Pectoretalk 19:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Salih(talk) 15:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is more an ethnicity than a caste, even though the article uses the word "caste". I recommend a carefull approach to this nomination. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to any refs for that, please? What I have found shows that it is a caste. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 15:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bit of an odd one. This category was at one time used by {{WikiProject Erie}} but has long been replaced with Category:NA-Class Erie articles, leaving behind this collection of images where the category was mistakingly added manually rather than by placing the project banner on their talk pages. Suggest renaming to something more descriptive and reparenting in Category:Images of Pennsylvania. PC78 (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Sounds like a good idea. HidingT 12:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to more clearly describe the contents of the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Overcategorisation by non-notable intersection. From that page: 'Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.' I don't think 'LGBT producers' could be described as such. The same could be said for many of the other subcats of Category:LGBT people by occupation, but this one stood out to me as particularly absurd. Robofish (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, 'absurd' may have been a bit harsh. But the point is, we shouldn't have categories like this. Yes, some producers are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, but that doesn't mean we should single out a category of 'LGBT producers' if there's nothing to say about such a group other than 'they exist'. Robofish (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My initial reaction was to say "delete", but a quick scan of the category shows that several of the people categorised there produce work with LGBT themes or bring an LGBT sensibility to their work (Almodóvar is a prime example, but check the others). This is not merely an intersection category of two irrelevant issues, it is a categorization of a particular set of approaches to film-making. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a category that groups these individuals by a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and relevant intersection. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.- choster 00:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match head article, and because the current name hurts. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2009 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 20#Category:English-language education. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)