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 12:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Occuli (talk) 15:35, 20 March 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. Kbdank71 12:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Occuli (talk) 15:35, 20 March 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:procedural close, this isn't anything that needs CFD to do. Kbdank71 13:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. MoS; categories for the other architectural styles do not use "buildings". APKHow you durrin? 07:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm retarded or illiterate. I read your comment again and it appears we agree, so fughetabout when I said "I'm referring to..." APKHow you durrin? 19:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine! I agree(?) also since all but about 10 of the 81 buildings are American, this might be renamed to Category:Beaux-Arts buildings in America with the 10 removed, again under the new head-cat. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. A Wiki version of Commons:Category:Beaux-Arts architecture in Washington, D.C. is my ultimate goal (for an upcoming article...my gayborhood is full of Beaux). I'm not really familiar with the CfD process (I think this is my first nom), so is it okay to go ahead and create the US & DC subcats while this discussion is taking place? Or will that eff things up? APKHow you durrin? 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the proposed parent cat is up for deletion it's probably not a good idea to start creating sub-cats. Otto4711 (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was my line Otto - didn't you think people should be be bold instead of just sitting around moaning yada-yada .... I'm confused. If you read the nom, you'll see it is just up for renaming anyway. Best to wait, I still think. Johnbod (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're finding so confusing. This nomination is about a parent category. Mozart biographers is not a parent category, nor would the suggested Mozart scholars category be. Otto4711 (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the suggestions above. That is create the parent Category:Beaux-Arts architecture, the sibling Category:Beaux-Arts architects and redistribute the articles (there are precedents for all 3 in Category:Architectural styles but not together). (The French wiki article on Beaux Arts might well supply some French B-A architects with articles in Eng Wiki.) As this doesn't need a cfd and no-one has dissented as far as I can tell (although Mozart has made an appearance, against extraordinary odds), the nom could boldly withdraw the nom and boldly proceed. Occuli (talk) 12:41, 19 March 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:North Korean university navigational boxes[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 12:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Only one entry (itself listed at TfD), unlikely to be more. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:58, 18 March 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. Kbdank71 12:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category should be renamed based on extended discussions at WT:PHARM:CAT regarding the categorization of pharmacology articles. Please see WP:PHARM:CAT and WP:DERM:CAT for more details. kilbad (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the average person is unlikely to know what "emollients and protectives" means. I tried to read through the Pharm talk page but my eyes glazed over. Can you directly link the relevant discussion? Otto4711 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming - This proposal doesn't make sense to me. As far as I can see, all of the entries currently in this category are in fact "Sunscreening agents". I didn't spot any "emollients" (though it's possible I missed something). In any event, I don't see the utility of combining the two groups of substances. I'd much rather see the emollients placed in a category of their own; strangely, there is no Category:Emollients. I just did a site search for emollients and there are plenty of articles -- Aqueous cream, Cetostearyl alcohol, Diprobase, Lanolin, Cocoa butter, Shea butter - to name a few -- none of which are properly considered "Sunscreening agents" as far as I know, although some have been used in Sunscreen preparations. Cgingold (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ordinary language is best. This is not a pharmaceutical but a general encyclopedia DGG (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for now. I would like to see something that is more accurate and contains UV. It is my understanding that most of these are UV filter compounds. In fact renaming and splitting into UVA and UVB as subcategories might be even better. Maybe Category:UV filtering sunscreens? I'm open to a better alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for now. I think the nominator my be getting a bit too far ahead in the huge task of properly categorizing pharmaceuticals and related products. "Sunscreening agents" seems like a bad name to me, as both the active agent and the form in which it is applied are important to the desired outcome (blocking harmful UV radiation). On the other hand, the proposed new category seems very wide in scope: perhaps the new category should be created anyway to fit with WP:PHARM:CAT), with Category:Sunscreening agents (or whatever better name we can come up with) placed as a subcategory. Physchim62(talk) 13:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for comprehensibility & focus, per several. Probably the proposed name should be set up as a parent, per Physchim62. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what's a protective? at least we know what we're talking about with the current formulation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The present name is the popular one. The proposal may be correct pharmacological terminology, but we would need to keep the present version as a redirect; and do not category redirects give some one the trouble of watching them all that they stay as redirects? If we do need a redirect, I would suggest that it should be for emollients, a term whose meaning I would have had to look up! Peterkingiron (talk) 00:58, 18 March 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. Kbdank71 12:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category should be renamed based on extended discussions at WT:PHARM:CAT regarding the categorization of pharmacology articles. Please see WP:PHARM:CAT and WP:DERM:CAT for more details. kilbad (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all acne treatments are preparations.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor are they really "treatments" in the general sense of the word. I can't see anything in the category at the moment which couldn't fit with the term "preparations". The one that is missing from the current category and isn't a preparation is sunlight, but that could simply be discussed in our article on acne. Physchim62(talk) 13:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, apart from the things that aren't that way, they're all that way... that's not an argument.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blue/red light treatment is a specific acne treatment, and is not a preparation. There are other laser treatments that have been used, and there are some steroid injections and mechanical treatments which can't really be said to be acne preparations either.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per my comment immediately above. Physchim62(talk) 13:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all treatments are preparations phototherapy and some diets and vitamins, without being what you consider to be preparations, have been shown to improve acne.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:41, 17 March 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.
Delete - the category is currently capturing both series set in Vancouver and series that are filmed in Vancouver. Renaming will result in series whose characters never set foot in Vancouver within the fiction (21 Jump Street, to pick the first series in the category totally at random) categorized as being set in Vancouver. Ideally, some enterprising editor should go through the category and separate them, but since that's not likely to happen, delete the category and, should by some happenstance an editor express an interest, any passing admin can generate a list of the category contents. Otto4711 (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename until separation can be done. While a distinction should be made between "set in" and "produced in", the current category better fits the mixed use. Deletion is not a viable option as Vancouver is a key production centre (third in North America, IIRC) and the category is useful. --Ckatzchatspy 02:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How have other categories handled this, say for example New York City? (I prefer the lead by example of what works rule) Mkdwtalk 06:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many have been split, but there have been a few deletions as I recall. Generally there is more support for the set in ones then the shot in ones. I don't recall produced in having been used in the past. I think that Category:Films by setting and Category:Films by shooting location are the main parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:25, 17 March 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:St. Paul's School (New Hampshire) alumni[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus--Aervanath (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Sorting by non-defining characteristic. Where one went to high school is no more defining than any other level of school short of university. TM 01:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Category:People by high school in the United States and many precedents, which have always ended in keep (usually a no-consensus keep) unless there are very few articles (not so here). The most spectacular was this cfd which included this school and was taken to DRV (by Otto4711, as it happens). Occuli (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is rare that a person is defined by the high school they attended. To pick one member of this category more or less (mostly less) at random, when considering John Kerry, is "alumnus of St. Paul's School going to be in the top ten defining characteristics that will come to mind? In the top 100? Highly unlikely. Otto4711 (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, more often than you would think. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For major schools, it's defining. In my experience, at least as much as college. And this is unquestionably a major school. DGG (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not categorizing schools by alumni; it's categorizing alumni by schools. The question is not whether schools are defined by their alumni, it's whether an alumnus is defined by where they went to high school. And what constitutes a "major" high school, and what criteria are used to determine that? Otto4711 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's not appropriate for this school with its strong alumni/social cohesiveness, then it's absolutely not appropriate for any of the other schools so categorized on Wikipedia.--Ken Gallager (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My position is unchanged since my omnibus nomination of these. This is not defining for those included. As Otto points out, this is a categorization of people by school, not a categorization by school by people, though at times enthusiasts may prefer to interpret it the other way. I also agree with Ken Gallager's all-or-none argument—all secondary school categories in WP should be deleted and replaced with lists. In my view, this is probably the ultimate in WP "fanship cruft", the categories being popular with the alumni of the schools, of course, but of little relevance in the grand scheme of WP—certainly nothing that couldn't be adequately referenced in a good article or list. (Ultimately, proposing deletion of these is a good cause that can probably never be won—having these categories is one of the great inconsistencies in content that results from governing by consensus—while consensus should determine results, I'm not optimistic in this case that things will ever change, which would apparently require a wholesale extinguishment of school spirit.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --If we allow alumni categories for one high school, we effectively have to allow them for all. In UK, old boys networks are reputed to run the country (or have done so in the not too distant past). Does the same apply to the top American (private) Prep schools? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or, if we accept that logic—delete one, delete them all. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You tried that for the US in this cfd. You would get nowhere at all with Old Etonians. It's simply a matter of opinion whether high school is defining and enough people agree with Mjl0509's argument below (which applies to many non-boarding schools) to ensure that consensus to delete these categories will be elusive. Occuli (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. And yes, I've acknowledged that the logic takes most people no where, probably because of some inculcated fanship cruftiness for such things that in the grand scheme of things are trivial. But the old boys will never admit it. It's a losing battle, fighting all these cabals. I'll just have to await the forthcoming "WP Night of Long Knives" in which a certain WP bureaucrat purges all consensus-imposed "bad categories" from the WP body. Until then—rah, rah—go team! Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that your approach to overcoming consensus that you don't like is to follow the example of what happened on the Night of the Long Knives in 1934? We have already had problems with trivialization and minimization of the Holocaust, and I sincerely cannot understand why Adolf Hitler's orders to systematically murder dozens of people, many of whom solely based on differing viewpoints, is a subject for a joke here. An appropriate explanation and apology is necessary. Alansohn (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Alansohn, that is exactly what I am suggesting. :) Relax, my friend. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for several reasons. First, I'm think there's a reason adolescence is referred to as "the formative years"; it is when a lot of people mature or begin to develop linearly into the people they're going to become. So it's likely that one's environment during adolescence would have a remarkable impact on one's life and outlook. Second, high schools vary tremendously in curriculum and methodology, and boarding schools in America are very rare, such that having had that uncommon (and engulfing) experience is very likely to be a defining characteristic about someone. To, Otto, you ask whether this is one of John Kerry's top 10 defining characteristics? Absolutely. I urge you to check back to 2004, when several major newspapers (including The New York Times) wrote in-depth profiles of John Kerry's time at St. Paul's, on the rationale that his experience and contributions there as a teenager were both indicative and formative. I'd conclude by asking anyone who differentiates between high school and colleges on this issue whether a) There is hard evidence that where someone goes to University is formative for them – if not, I have to ask why you're imposing this standard on high schools; and b) why it wouldn't make more sense that attending a boarding school – a rare, intense place in America — as a teenager is MORE formative than attending a University as a young adult. And yes, there are rumors that a similar old boys' network runs America. I welcome any replies. Mjl0509 (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Connolly writes ""Were I to deduce any system from my feelings on leaving Eton, it might be called The Theory of Permanent Adolescence. It is the theory that the experiences undergone by boys at the great public schools, their glories and disappointments, are so intense as to dominate their lives and to arrest their development. From these it results that the greater part of the ruling class remains adolescent, school-minded, self-conscious, cowardly, sentimental, and in the last analysis homosexual." In brief, he found the experience to be defining. Occuli (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that high schools are infrequently worthy means of categorization, but it is clear that attendance at St. Paul's School (New Hampshire) is a strong defining characteristic, and the individuals so categorized meet the textbook definition of grouping similar articles by a defining characteristic for the purpose of navigation. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial characteristic on which to categorize. A list at the school's article is sufficient, we don't need cat clutter for every freaking high school alumni group nor the POV mess of saying which high school is defining for its alums vs. which isn't. Hint: none are. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all attendee of school categories as overcat. Yes one may feel that attending some school may have been quite the experience. But let's compare that to employment. Do we categorise everyone who's ever been employed by McDonald's? How about just those who're alumni of Hamburger University? No on both counts. Best they have is: Category:McDonald's people. So why would we categorise based upon who may have attended a school? Isn't that not unlike categorising by those who have a 4-year season pass to something (a sporting venue, a theatre venue, etc.) You pay for something, and you return on a regular basis for more. Shrugs, that's me at the local arcade (or movie theater) not so long ago. And by the way, as far as "defining", someone is more likely to call reading a certain book (such as one on conveying some specific philosophy) as a "defining moment" in their life, than quite a few categories we see here at CfD. ("I read such-n-such, and it just absolutely changed my life forever" - Ever have one of those coversations with a friend? : ) - jc37 08:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly if this were a defining characteristic we would need to keep it. These categories clearly become maintenance nightmares since they are open for inclusion for unsourced and not defining additions. I fail to see how this school was defining for Sam von Trapp and others. The keep arguments seem to focus on schools being defining. The entries in the category don't support that position. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per jc37 and others. Not defining, a list is fine. --Kbdank71 12:58, 23 March 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.
