Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 17 June 19 >

June 18[edit]

Category:Fictional characters who are implied to be the devil[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional characters who are implied to be the devil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subjective; open to interpretation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing Deletion. I was never notified of this being nominated, If you'll see the page, "have at least once been implied to be the devil". I think it a great way to associate related articles. ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 01:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – I expect there are other categories for characters with anti-social tendencies and unsightly dermatological conditions; and there is Category:Fictional characters who've made pacts with devils (perhaps the only category name containing 'who've'). Occuli (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A classic name with an even more classic definition: "Characters in fiction who've made pacts with the Devil or other assorted demons of similar nature." Too good to nominate! Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "implied" by whom? What constitutes an implication? Totally subjective inclusion criteria, demanding OR. Otto4711 (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per Otto4711. Critery for inclusion is based on OR and POV. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:49, 27 June 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.

Category:Billboard Modern Rock Tracks number-one singles[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 per nom. Erik9 (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Billboard Modern Rock Tracks number-one singles to Category:Billboard Hot Alternative Tracks number-one singles
Nominator's rationale: Chart was renamed this past week. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. As the chart and article were renamed, it only makes sense to rename the category as well. — Σxplicit 07:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and Billboard magazine. - eo (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as with "Club Songs", thanks Ten. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 21:49, 21 June 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.

Category:Rear projection television[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/delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Rear projection television to both parents
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single entry category that is not likely to have much expansion of articles that would have the same two parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 18 June 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.

Category:Northern Irish television[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: Renme. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Northern Irish television to Category:Television in Northern Ireland
Nominator's rationale: to avoid adjective 'Northern Irish' as per previous discussion and as per Category:Television in Scotland and Category:Television in Wales Mayumashu (talk) 17:01, 18 June 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.

Category:Billboard Hot Dance Club Play number-one singles[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: Renme. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Billboard Hot Dance Club Play number-one singles to Category:Billboard Hot Dance Club Songs number-one singles
Nominator's rationale: Billboard changed the name of a few charts in the past week or so, including Hot Dance Club Play becoming Hot Dance Club Songs. The category should probably be named according to the current chart name, I would think. I don't know all of the charts that have been renamed, but Hot Modern Rock Tracks became Hot Alternative Tracks (and on that one, the word "Hot" isn't in the existing category name, and I haven't tagged that one). Hope I did this right, I've never done anything here and the process was confusing. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 16:52, 18 June 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.

Category:Piano tuners[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.--Aervanath (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Piano tuners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Those listed in this category are more notable for other occupations other than being a piano tuner (poet, piano maker, or piano seller, for example) SpikeJones (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just One wrote a book on the subject & the poet evidently made his living almost entirely this way, so just makes it imo. No reason why there should not be others one day - at least one London tuner was very well known in the music world. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Most piano tuners will be NN, but that is no reason for the category not to exist. However it is unlikely ever to be a large one, as those included will need also to be notable for other reasons in order to have an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep a perfectly legitimate occupation, whether full or part time; probably not going to disappear soon either. Hmains (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the members of the category do not appear to be defined by having tuned pianos. Yes, some of them worked as piano tuners but every occupation of a notable person does not by definition warrant a category dedicated to the profession. Otto4711 (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the parent is about tunings, not tuners. Many musicians, rarely exclusively piano performers, study piano tuning as undergraduates; the Uni I attended had an extensive program. It's a job we often do between gigs. There's one possibly notable piano tuner in the category, more notable for being a blind activist. Nothing else is even close to "defining" or "notable".
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
?? The parentS are "piano" and "musical tuning". Other issues apart, there is no problem with the category's fit into these. Johnbod (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the articles about tunings. Please don't categorize based on possible common interpretations of names of categories, since it doesn't mean what you think it means.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for grouping by a defining common characteristic. Notability for any other reason does not preclude piano tuning being a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We really need to spruce up the definition of "defining". Musicians generally have ears, but we don't categorize them by their ears -- we categorize the ones that couldn't hear. Had this been about notable tuners of historic temperaments, as implied by the parent, that might be a different story (much more rare). In this case, since many/most classically trained, university educated musicians (even brass musicians such as myself) can (and do) tune pianos between gigs, neither "defining" nor "notable".
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reading the included articles, I fail to see how this can in any way, shape or form be considered as defining for most of the individuals. If the category was not being discussed here, virtually every entry could be dropped since the text does not support inclusion. What we are looking for is a defining characteristic, not a common characteristic, or an occupation that is not defining for the individuals. Clearly as pointed out above in a keep opinion, most of these are not going to be notable for this which is the case and a good reason to delete since for these people it will be OCAT at best. Maybe someone would like to create a list if this characteristic is worth keeping track of? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vegaswikian. Debresser (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Debresser. Steam5 (talk) 23:55, 29 June 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.

Category:Waste management concepts[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.--Aervanath (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Waste management concepts to Category:Waste management Category:Waste management terminology
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I decided to bring this here after looking at the contents. What exactly is a waste management concept? The category currently includes articles like bottle crate which does not even discuss waste management. Even if it did, I fail to see how this qualifies as a concept. Of all the articles that I looked at, clearly a limited sample, not one seems to be appropiate for this category. I considered a delete, but I was not sure if that was a safe option. For the articles I looked at, it would not cause a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two renaming suggestions are very different. In my view Category:Waste management terminology should be spread over the many other sub-cats of Category:Waste management, but there is a place for a dedicated category for theoretical articles, which about half of these are. bottle crate is not usefully categorized as "terminology", imo, & obviously is not very theoretical. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object if someone took this discussion and used it to create new categories and cleaned up this collection. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like to rearrange articles in advance of a decision here, but would be prepared to do so afterwards. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which rename would make the cleanup easier? That might be the best choice at this point. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well doing the theory seems fairly straigtforward. If we go terminology, really new stuff should be added I suppose. What's a term & what's just a thing? Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 28 June 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.

Category:Religious Zionism movements[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 per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Religious Zionism movements to Category:Religious Zionist organizations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The contents of this category are organizations, not movements. Eliyak T·C 02:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Although with Jews usualy every organisation has its own ideology and interpretation, still I agree with the nominator. Debresser (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. At least no one will try to call them "theories" then :) Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While many of these organizations use the word "movement" in their name, the word "organization" more broadly reflects the content and intent of the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:33, 19 June 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.

Category:Isley Brothers members[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 close following rename and CSD of original by creator. Non-admin closure. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 15:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Isley Brothers members to Category:The Isley Brothers members
Nominator's rationale: Parent article uses "The". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close?. Its creator has made the change and blanked the first page. Otherwise I support the rename. Occuli (talk) 08:45, 18 June 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.

Category:Members of Les Enfoirés[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. The delete opinions present the better case. The only comment on keeping was that something is notable enough to warrant a category. If that was the case, then this event should be getting sufficient discussion in the articles of the performers. For the subset I looked at, this event is not even mentioned. So clearly the included articles do not support this as being a defining characteristic for the performers. So based on past consensus decisions, this is a clear delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Members of Les Enfoirés to Category:Les Enfoirés members
Nominator's rationale: Most "members" categories use "X members" naming patterns. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Les Enfoirés seems to be an annual concert (although there might have been an original band around 1986). (104 articles including Eric Cantona - Performer by performance.) Occuli (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename per nom. Notable enough to warrent a category. Europe22 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - category is capturing performers who performed at an annual charity concert. This is clearly overcategorization of performer by performance venue. Otto4711 (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- yet another performer by performance.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:10, 21 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_18&oldid=1080453915"