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 06:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Use full names for clarity and to match relevant articles about them. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me - Me and the wife have always been big fans of old D&G and it makes sense to use their full names. Not that there are any other Deleuze & Guattari's about, as far as I can tell! Yours, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/possible delete There is already a Category:Works by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari (subcategorised under this Category:Deleuze-Guattari). That clearly-named category expressing the intersection of their works, so I'm struggling to see a role for Category:Deleuze-Guattari? Placing works/concepts by say Gilles Deleuze alone under the collaboration category just blurs matters? (If the category does stay, its use could be pruned: for example the article Noosphere is not only in the category but also carrying a D-G template despite mentioning neither in the actual article.) AllyD (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename AllyD's point about deletion is interesting, but this would lose the categorization for the articles about concepts that the duo collaborated on. ThemFromSpace 02:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to more clearly define contents of the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:58, 29 November 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization of performers by performance. Per long consensus, we don't categorize actors by what TV series, films, etc. they appear in. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:22, 22 November 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. — ξxplicit 00:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. A few months ago, there were some deletions of categories that categorized "sportscaster by team" (see here and here, for instance). Since those deletions, a very large number of these types of categories have been created by one editor. Is there a consensus that these should be deleted? I believe the general reasoning is that these categories are akin to other forms of overcategorization of performer by performance. I have selected one of these categories (essentially at random) to see if we can gauge the attitude towards these. If there is consensus to delete, the others may be nominated later; I didn't want to nominate them all if there is not a consensus to delete them. Note that most of these already have lists created for them; e.g., List of Detroit Tigers broadcasters. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP:Well there are 30-32 teams in all four major sports and each time has a long history with their announcers. It makes it easier just the same way you wouldnt categorize all the teams seasons by sport instead of by a team.--Levineps (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a useful and NPOV category. There's no real difference between categorising announcers by their teams and categorising players, coaches, and managers by their teams. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The consensus in the sporting world is the the supposed "Performer by performance" standard has no relevance. We track players, coaches, managers by team, and we should categorize those broadcasters for whom there is a strong defining connection, as there is here. Just this season, players on the Philadelphia Phillies wore the letters "HK" on their uniforms in memory of broadcaster Harry Kalas, evidence of the strength of the defining connection. Such categories should be created for all 30+ teams, if they do not yet exist. The fact the corresponding lists exist will make the task of recreating and populating these categories much easier, ensuring that the lists AND categories can coexists and be expanded in synergistic fashion as advocated by WP:CLN. Alansohn (talk) 03:03, 29 November 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:Rename to match and clarify contents. This is for settlements that were once incorporated as municipalities, but which became unincorporated for whatever reason. This is a very important distinction in the U.S., because municipalities have local governments that enjoy often significant home rule powers, by virtue of municipal charters operating under state law, all of which unincorporated settlements lack. It is not to be confused with Category:Former settlements in the United States, though obviously a former municipality could also become a former settlement if it lost its population.
"Municipality" is a better and more inclusive term than "city" because not all municipalities in the U.S. are designated "cities". Further, because many states separate classes of municipalities by population, if the population of a "city" dropped it could then be downgraded to a "village", and so be a "former city" but not a former municipality, which is not a useful distinction at the national level, and it is not what this category structure targets. I notice that there is currently not uniformity among how the subcategories are named; I intend to take that up in a separate CFD only after this parent category has been renamed. postdlf (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for reasons given by nominator. This is a good proposal. --Orlady (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a long-overdue proposal. Because in practice this category is used to include all former municipalities that aren't municipalities anymore, it needs to have a broad name, and I can't imagine a more suitable name than the one Postdlf proposes. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, for the sake of legal and semantic accuracy. --Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 06:56, 29 November 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. --Xdamrtalk 15:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The fact that a pug dog happens to appear in a movie is not a defining characteristic for a movie. We don't categorize movies by even the actors that appear in them, let alone the type of animals. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As the category description itself indicates, "there are many films which feature a pug [and another animals] either as a main character or in a supporting role". For most films, the presence of a pug in the film is not a defining characteristic, especially when the dog is on-screen for only a few seconds as is usually the case. For any films where a pug is the main subject of the film, we can use Category:Films about dogs. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 03:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if someone could have let me know that this discussion is going on. Me and my wife were talking about the sheer number of films that have a pug in them, and we thought that "films featuring pugs" would be a good and concise way to keep all the articles together - so pug watchers can get their movies all sorted. I think it's a fine idea - my wife has a near obsession with pugs, and she has thousands of little pug trinkets, not to mention a load of actual pugs. you should see their messy wet faces! I'd hate to see this category deleted, so I vote Keep. Yours, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay on point and avoid discussing what your wife thinks, she can speak for herself through an account of her own, thanks. -- Banjeboi 14:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and daftify. Made with the best of intentions, I am sure, but more than faintly ridiculous. A list would suffice, if such a list is though really worth having. Grutness...wha? 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. I agree this should be a list article, not a category. DreamFocus 11:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. Certainly interesting information although a larger list encompassing many of the Category:Films about dogs in general would likely make a better list with this being converted into a subheading of the larger list. I agree with BrownHairedGirl that currently this is a slippery slope issue that would quickly bog down and render useless categorizing, in the future however we will want exactly this information readily available - which are the films that feature a particular breed of dog, brand of car, etc. At the moment it's way too trivial for categorizing but a system to allow tagging articles as such will be useful at some point. Until then, listify. -- Banjeboi 14:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and strongly oppose creating a list per WP:LISTCRUFT, and WP:SALAT. Unless the subject has recieved significant mentions in reliable, third-party sources we shouldn't have an article about it. ThemFromSpace 01:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I nominated the related list article for deletion. ThemFromSpace 01:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Based on the responses here, I have created List of films featuring pugs, which I am working on referencing and expanding. Sadly, before I have had much of a chance to work on it, someone has nominated it for deletion. Why is Wikipedia so determined to keep pugs out? Dolores Luxedo (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response Its a pug hating world, run by evil cat owning deletionists, and we're all just mice in their field. Bite the cat hard enough and it'll eventually stop trying to eat you. DreamFocus 00:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa there tiger! That's mighty disrespectful to cats. -- Banjeboi 01:24, 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is an inherently subjective term, and it is a term that is often used to attack a man, so I don't think it's appropriate for categorization. Note that way back in 2006 we deleted Cat:Promiscuous fictional characters and Cat:Adulterers. This sort of category still seems like a bad idea. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; contrary to WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, not to mention WP:OCAT. I left a note on the user's talk page; he's new, so it's clearly a case of just being unfamiliar with how to properly categorize. postdlf (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have familiarised myself with the rules surrounding Wikipedia and since viewing the message on my talkpage have also had a look at previous deletions. It is clear that many categories including the ones above described have been deleted for no good reason. The category I have created is an interesting one and frankly I think it should be kept. The policy in question, WP:Personal Point of View, while a relevant policy could be applied to pretty much any category therefore a certain amount of disregard should perhaps be applied to this policy. --Nemesis the Fourth (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, it actually must be applied to literally every category. And any category that is not NPOV must be deleted. If you meant to say that "pretty much any category" that already exists fails to satisfy WP:NPOV, I don't see any basis for such an assertion, nor do I think most people would agree with you. Nor, even if that were true, would that be a valid reason for ignoring a non-negotiable policy on Wikipedia; it would instead be reason for deleting all of those POV categories. But by trying to argue that, are you effectively conceding that "womanizer" (pardon my American spelling) is not a neutral word? postdlf (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Postdlf. Not a defining characteristic for a person (although for some people it does seem like one!), way too much potential for WP:BLP issues, and even if the "womaniser" is dead, it's pure POV to give them that label (nobody gets labeled "womaniser" by a court of law, for example). --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether officially it should be applied to every category, I think a certain amount of supposition is required in all matters but that's a discussion for another time and another place. Even if "most people on Wikipedia would disagree (with me)" that doesn't necessarily mean that I am wrong. "If a million people" as the saying goes. Furthermore I don't think that anything is non-negotiable, least of all the policy of a website, even one so influential as Wikipedia, nor should such categories be deleted as, like the one in question, they have merit. Perhaps the word "womaniser" (nothing wrong with American spellings) is not a neutral word but by that reckoning, nor is murderer. Look at the article on the Jigsaw Killer for an example of what I'm talking about. Wikipedia:TERRORIST serves as an example of WP:NPOV gone mad, though I admit it is one of the more noble policies on WP. --Nemesis the Fourth (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it were "negotiable" to discuss change to such policies-- and a case can be made either way, I would guess-- this is not the place to consider such site-wide policies. Feel free to go to WP:Village pump. This is a place for discussion of how we apply such policies that are known as "non-negotiable".
The Jigsaw Killer does not serve your attempted point because he presumably acted in a country or state that defies murder and other crimes in a particular way, crimes which he may (or may not) be convicted of. While we may not have the means to categorize anyone in category:Non-murderers-- we can put convicted people in category:Murderers. There is no such clear meaning to the term "Womaniser."
Delete - The problems of neutrality and subjectivity (both "womaniser" and "promiscuity" are concepts that lack precise definition) mentioned by the nominator are not surmountable for this category. Nemesis IV is correct that "murderer" is also not a neutral word, but that's why we have Category:People convicted of murder. Conviction of murder by a court of law is a neutral, objective, and verifiable basis for categorisation; womanising is not. In addition, in the context of an encyclopedia, the fact of being a womaniser is non-defining for most people to whom that labeled could be or has been applied. There are exceptions (i.e., individuals who are known largely or solely for their womanising, such as Giacomo Casanova), but they represent a very small percentage of the total. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 02:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, Postdlf, Orlady, Black Falcon. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete ' per nominator, Postdlf, Orlady, Black Falcon. This category is far too subjective to have clear and non-arbitrary inclusion criteria. Value-laden terms such as this should only be used in articles if clearly attributed, because that clarifies who is making the value-judgement ... but categories are a binary choice which allow no such qualification. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps listifying would be a better way of doing things. --Nemesis the Fourth (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're always welcome to try. You'd undoubtedly have more success with a (well-sourced and NPOV) list pertaining only to fictional characters than if you tried to list this trait among real people. And certainly please don't try to combine them without differentiation. postdlf (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely NPOV and OR. I am a great womaniser, e.g. Just that most women would disagree with me about that. Or the other way around. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I can imagine that someone could be added to this category without OR (reliable sources may call someone a womaniser), this category is so subjective, problematic for BLPs, and prone to NPOV problems, as well as not being of great interest, that it should go. Plus, it would not represent a pirmary feature of any of the article subjects. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 27 November 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:speedy delete G7. Category's creator requested its deletion as the only contributor, as it was strongly leaning towards deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization of performers by performance. Per long consensus, we don't categorize actors by what TV series, films, etc. they appear in. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:OC#PERF, and countless precedents. This sort of "Actors appearing in" category has been deprecated so consistently and for so long that it probably should be a speedy criterion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I was unaware of the previous consensus, even taking it in to account account, I feel this category is of use to the encyclopaedia. It forms a part of an effort to enhance all WP coverage relating to The Bill. While it may not generally be proper to categorise actors by their performance, The Bill is particularly notable, not least due to the sheer number of actors who have had regular appearances in it- all but one of whose articles are BLPs, most of them unreferenced and myself and another editor have been using the category to work through and improve these articles. FWIW, if I was a new user, I would feel very bitten if something i created was nominated for deletion less than 48 hours after it was created, especially if the nominator couldn't be bothered to inform me. HJMitchellYou rang? 06:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category was tagged. One reason it is tagged so that those with it on their watchlist will be notified. Presumably that's how you were notified. WP:BITE deals with hostility, not with processes and outcomes that may be unfamiliar or disagreed with. No hostility towards the creator has been expressed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would agree with HJ Mitchell on this one. We are putting The Bill forward for GA status, this is something that has been recommended that we do. It is of relevance to the encyclopedia from the sheer number of actors that have passed through The Bill. By the way I don't see how it can have depreciated consistently and for so long as it's only been together 48 hours! I also agree with HJ's point about biting. The article has only been put together in the last 48 hours, please at least allow us the chance to get the article together properly before judging it. By the way if I was a new editor with an article up for deletion less than 48 hours after I'd put it together I would feel very bitten on this especially as we're not even being given the chance here to put it together! Don't forget we are doing this to try and IMPROVE an article, I fail to see how that is not in Wikipedia's interests --5 albert square (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't up for deletion, or being judged. This is about a category only. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a little bit confused about what the complaint is about. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. We don't "enhance...coverage relating to" any individual television series at the expense of category clutter on actor articles. The reasons why we got rid of all actors by television series categories bears some restatement, because we don't delete these categories just because we've always deleted them; rather we delete them because they are not a good idea. Categorizing every actor who has ever appeared in a television series indiscriminately lumps together regular cast members with actors who just made guest appearances, which makes such categories a rather trivial grouping, particularly with TV series that have guest stars every episode (such as nearly all police or medical procedurals, which present new patients, suspects, victims, etc. with every new episode), such that most of the included actors never even worked together. And from the point of view of the actor articles, categorizing them by every television series they ever appeared in would dump many of them with dozens of category tags, most of which would not represent defining or significant roles. The argument that The Bill is somehow special enough to be granted an exception is not convincing, because there is no principled way to make such a distinction as to which TV series deserve to categorize every actor and which don't, and categorizing some but not all TV series in this manner would haphazardly result in some actors getting categorized by cameo appearances in "particularly notable" series but not by recurring roles. None of the flaws I point out are hypothetical, but rather were once the state of affairs until agreement was reached to delete these categories and maintain list articles only. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Bill is no more special than any other TV series and there is no overwhelming reason why OCAT should be ignored here. Bradley0110 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(duplicate) OK, maybe I should've made myself clearer before, I'm just used to calling everything in Wikipedia an article as opposed to a category. It is encyclopedic and it is trying to enhance all Wikipedia information for The Bill. Please don't forget that we set this category up to get The Bill article to GA status and to improve the main article. For what it's worth, we created this category because we got told not to have too many lists in the main article. However improving this category and revamping the main article are going hand-in-hand. Can't we at least get the chance to do this instead of (what seems to be) automatically assuming that the category isn't encyclopedic? If I was new to Wikipedia I would be feeling very bitten right now --5 albert square (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What appears to be an automatic assumption about the inappropriateness of the category is actually a conclusion based in dozens of discussions concerning similar categories (different television series, but the same core premise). The purpose of categories is to organize articles in order to aid navigation between related articles. Categories are not suited to the task of, and should not be used for, enhancing content. When choosing whether to add a category to a biographical article, one must look at the issue from the perspective of the article, not the category. So, one must consider whether that category reflects a characteristic that is defining for the subject of the article. In this case, this means considering whether appearing in The Bill is a defining characteristic for each actor who appeared in the series. In addition, when considering the overall appropriatness of a category, one must consider several other factors, including: (1) is the characteristic that forms the basis of the category defining for most or all of the people who qualify for inclusion in the category; and (2) if the category is part of a more general scheme of categorization or sets a precedent for creating such a scheme, then is that scheme overall viable? I don't know enough about the actors who appear in The Bill to make a judgment on the first question (in the absolute majority of cases, however, the answer is "no"), but for the second question I can confidently say that the answer is "no". Throughout their professional careers, actors appear in numerous television series and films; creating a category for each one would cause tremendous clutter at the bottom of biographical articles about actors and would negatively impact the ability of readers to use the category system for its primary purpose: navigation between related articles. On the matter of the GA nomination: the existence of a category which does not (and should not) even appear on the article The Bill should not be a factor during the evaluation of the article for GA status. In fact, after skimming through the GA review, I could spot no mention of the need for this category. I did notice the portion of the discussion dealing with the question of how to handle the listing of actors—where the GA reviewer, hamiltonstone, supported the idea of creating a list—but I saw nothing about a category. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 01:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, postdlf, and the reasoning in my comment above (or listify, if desired, though I see that the information is already contained in List of characters of The Bill). I think that one statement in postdlf's comment bears repeating: "we don't delete these categories just because we've always deleted them; rather we delete them because they are not a good idea". While an appeal to precedence can, in theory, just be a deference to tradition, any reasoned invocation of precedent is essentially an assertion that the reasons and arguments in prior cases apply to a current case. At least in this context, The Bill is not substantially different from other long-running television series; therefore, I see no justification for making an exception to a well-reasoned and established principle. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 02:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We have always deleted them because they don't work, and are explicitly dealt with in performers by performance. Occuli (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per as above. I have a tangential involvement as the GA reviewer whose comments about lists in the article led to the estbalishment of a separate article, which is needed, but i do not think the category is needed. As long as the actors are in the list article, editors like HJM and 5as should be able to keep track of them for their project of improving The Bill-related articles, on which they have done a huge amount of good work. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:27, 27 November 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:administrative close. Nominator has been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppet of Jessica Liao (talk·contribs) who has continued to violate WP:POINT. I don't see the need to allow this discussion to go any further. — ξxplicit 08:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Special schools in the United Kingdom[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See previous AfD as I suggested it. Let's see if we will have consensus for this new category. I doubt it but nothing hurts to try. Rovea (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Special schools in the United States[edit]
Nominator's rationale: See previous AfD as I suggested it. Let's see if we will have consensus for this new category. I doubt it but nothing hurts to try. Rovea (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See previous AfD as I suggested it. Let's see if we will have consensus for this new category. I doubt it but nothing hurts to try. Rovea (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See previous AfD as I suggested it. Let's see if we will have consensus for this new category. I doubt it but nothing hurts to try. Rovea (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See previous AfD as I suggested it. Let's see if we will have consensus for this new category. I doubt it but nothing hurts to try. Rovea (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See previous AfD as I suggested it. Let's see if we will have consensus for this new category. I doubt it but nothing hurts to try. Rovea (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See previous AfD as I suggested it. Let's see if we will have consensus for this new category. I doubt it but nothing hurts to try. Rovea (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See previous AfD as I suggested it. Let's see if we will have consensus for this new category. I doubt it but nothing hurts to try. Rovea (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See previous AfD as I suggested it. Let's see if we will have consensus for this new category. I doubt it but nothing hurts to try. Rovea (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See previous AfD as I suggested it. Let's see if we will have consensus for this new category. I doubt it but nothing hurts to try.
Nominator's rationale: See previous AfD as I suggested it. Let's see if we will have consensus for this new category. I doubt it but nothing hurts to try.
Nominator's rationale: See previous AfD as I suggested it. Let's see if we will have consensus for this new category. I doubt it but nothing hurts to try.
Nominator's rationale: See previous AfD as I suggested it. Let's see if we will have consensus for this new category. I doubt it but nothing hurts to try. Rovea (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See previous AfD as I suggested it. Let's see if we will have consensus for this new category. I doubt it but nothing hurts to try. Rovea (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See previous AfD as I suggested it. Let's see if we will have consensus for this new category. I doubt it but nothing hurts to try. Rovea (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm tempted to speedy close this entire group under WP:POINT. There is no reason in the nomination to justify deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Orlady. Suggest speedy close, because categories should follow the naming convention of the head article(s), and the RM discussion on this head article was only opened at roughly the same time as this CFD. If the head article is renamed, then a fresh nomination should be made for these categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. The name "special school" is ridiculous. Anything can make something "special". The obvious intent was "schools for special education". As to the concern of Orlady], it seems to me that all these special schools are engaged in special education. And if not, then we can always remove them. :) Debresser (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming. First Rovea tried to have the article Special school deleted; then she appealed the clear consensus to keep to DRV; now she's trying to have the article renamed to a distinctly uncommon name (compare special schools, used by 90% of books, to special education schools, used by just 10% in Google Books). I don't know what Rovea's real-world problem with special education is, but I think this behavior is well beyond WP:POINTy. She wouldn't have even known about these cats if I hadn't mentioned them in the AfD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin did not provide a rationale. Any editor would have gone to DRV. Please see WP:RMdiscussion as I provided another response. Hopefully that one will be able to convince that a rename is necessary. Rovea (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such requirement, and the vast majority of AfDs that close without any rationale or explanation never appear at DRV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The related proposal is to rename Special school to 'Special education school'. The original proposal was to delete Special school or merge it into Special education. The point is that, in England at least, Special school is a legally correct term (and is in common use) and I have never heard anyone use special education school, any more than nursery education school or single-sex education school. Therefore, the category name is correct as far as the UK is concerned. If another jurisdiction uses a different term, a rename may be appropriate for that category. Sussexonian (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator blocked Rovea has been identified and blocked as yet another sock of User:Jessica Liao, a teenager on an indefinite community ban for abusive use of multiple accounts, and a long history of disruption with special education articles. Does anyone have any objections to closing these CfDs now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 26 November 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. Would have been listify, but the list already exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists aren't categories, both are useful. -- B.S. Lawrence (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How important/defining is this to a city? I've seen corporation limit signs declaring that the municipality I'm entering was an All-America City. The fact that they'd put that fact and no other on the sign suggests that it might mean something. postdlf (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My dad was a former city manager, and from what he said, it's not worth it to get one since you have to spend money to apply for the award. You then spend money advertising that you have won this award. While he was in office, he refused to apply for this award. In a way, I think this is a good scam, but it provides bragging rights to the municipality that wins it. I'm undecided if this is a good or bad thing, but it can provide a sense of pride for the city that gets the award. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How important or defining? Considering that my city is still boasting about the award it won in 1965 on its website and then arguing that it's still relevant even though much has changed, I don't think it's that defining. City officials would like to think it helps define their city, but it doesn't seem to be important enough. But when you have nothing else to say in your website's intro paragraph... what else to choose from? Rkitko(talk) 04:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. I haven't been to every town that has appeared on this list, but most of these places have people who moved there because of it (extremely shallow reason to move into Compton) and tried to emulate the ideals of that award into the city that they were now in. My town for example held a cookout and used this hoopla to advertise their win. In the end, I don't really care for the award, but it is a sense of pride as Rkitko said. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not because I dedicated two days of edits to this, but because this category makes other pages just one or two easy clicks away from a city that won the award without having to go through the list. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. We usually delete all but the most defining award categories in favor of lists. It doesn't sound like the type of thing that is defining for a place. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a defining characteristic. --Orlady (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this is a defining characteristic of these cities. The list can be linked from the relevant articles, if it;s significant enough to actually deserve a mention in the article. I'm sorry that Kevin Rutherford will feel understandably feel disappointed to see it go after dedicating two days of edits to this, and but time spent on it doesn't make it an appropriate category. Hope Kevin won't feel discouraged by this. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that I also created the categories because some of these municipalities have no mention that they won this award, so this makes the most sense when "advertising" it on the municipality page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The objective of adding this content to each city's article is a good one. However, the encyclopedia-like way to do that is to add the information to each article's text. If the list of All-America Cities is complete, it should provide a good basis for navigating to the individual articles to add the information. --Orlady (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If articles don't even bother to mention it, that weighs against the category's significance (and is reason for summarily removing a category, if the article itself doesn't support its inclusion). postdlf (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to add the information to the pages, but I will wait a week or so since I am trying to withdraw from my mass tagging of pages and I want to get some of my life that exists off of this site. I agree though with Postdlf though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Awards categories are generally unsatisfactory. Lists do a much better job. Categories are a navigation tool, not a means of "advertising" awards. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 27 November 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: Small, eponymous category, no foreseeable expansion. — ξxplicit 19:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Eponynous categories for companies are justified only if there are a lot of articles on that company. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 23 November 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: There is a QLD County Origin team. Mattlore (talk) 12:35, 22 November 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 as empty; presumably the issue is moot now due to the creator's actions.Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:18, 30 November 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. --Xdamrtalk 15:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Are there any baseball films that aren't American? I thought I could maybe find a Canadian or Japanese one in the category, but after a brief look through they look like they might all be American? If that's the case, we have a perfectly overlapping category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:01, 24 November 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 09:17, 29 November 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: *Rename to a slightly more descriptive name that matches the article and is less confusing when no context is given. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename would be nice if "language" could be smuggled in there somehow, but "English-only movement" at least matches the article. Declan Clam (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PreferCategory:English language only movement (USA) to separate this from racial purity movements dealing with English People (ie. traditional inhabitants of England and their pure blooded culturally pure descendants) - also there are English language only movements in countries other than the US, so this is a biased name that is not specific enough to exclude non-US movements. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:English language-only movement in the United States. This form addresses the need to specify language, and avoids the unnecessary disambiguation form and follows the normal form for US categories. I was going to move it there to close this discussion, but in light of the DRV happy world we live in decided against. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:05, 29 November 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 2#Category:Country Origin players. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)