Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 11

< July 10	July 12 >

July 11[edit]

Category:Converts to Episcopalianism from Roman Catholicism[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. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Converts to Episcopalianism from Roman Catholicism to Category:Converts to Anglicanism from Roman Catholicism

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There is no Category:Converts to Episcopalianism. "Episcopalianism" is a synonym for "Anglicanism" that is used in a few countries. No need to subdivide, especially at this point with only one article in it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - while a few of the articles in the higher level category could be moved to this one, it is not big enough to need sub-categories by branch of the Anglican Churches in communion with Canterbury. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Upmerge to Category:Converts to Anglicanism from Roman Catholicism. Episcopal is merely an adjective relating to a bishop. The Catholic Church is thus "episcopal", which strictly renders the category meaningless. I think we understand what it is about, becuase the US branch of the Anglican Communion calls itself episcopalian, but the target category is not so heavily populated as to need splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2010 (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:Chief justices of Lithuania[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. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chief justices of Lithuania to Category:Presidents of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The "chief justice" of Lithuania is the President of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent. This category only exists to complete Category:Chief justices by country. It only has one member, although more names (not articles or even redlinks) can be found at Constitutional Court of Lithuania. Is this chief versus president nomenclature an artifact of language and of no real meaning. Would it be more easily understood, and simpler, to leave as is, but to explain the different title on the category page? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's an artifact of language. Some courts are headed by chief justices, some by presidents. Often, someone called a "chief justice" is the head of the entire judiciary in a country, whereas a "president" is merely the head of the top court. International courts and tribunals tend to have "presidents". Common law countries tend to have "chief justices", and civil law countries tend to have "presidents", though there are no hard and fast rules, really. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Support rename. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Different counties have different titles for the equivalent post, so that there is no reason why the target should not remain in its existing parent without this being incongrous. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. We already have Category:Presidents of the Constitutional Court of Italy and others as precedent. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 12 July 2010 (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:Red-Headed Women[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete under G4, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 6#Category:Red-headed celebrities. — ξ ^xplicit 20:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not entirelys sure what purpose this category serves. Will just lead to arguements and edit warring more likely than not. magnius (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, bordering on a speedy. What's next, one for blue-eyed men? Nymf _hideliho! 20:27, 11 July 2010 (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:Semi-arid climate[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. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category appears to have been created to hold one bio energy feedstock plant. Clearly that plant has noting to do with climate the sole parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; yet another useless category from a now-banned user. postdlf (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletable WP:CSD#G5. I think the point/purpuse of G5 is not that all creations of a banned user should be deleted, but that they can be deleted on the opinion of a single admin or a single user through tagging {{db-banned|name of banned user}} (ie. subject to a brief review by a single admin). I don't think categories should be any exception to this. This one should be delete due to not being a useful category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't that only apply to content created by a banned user after they were banned? postdlf (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the key words for G5 are "in violation of their ban or block", which this wasn't. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category was created 12:40, 24 June 2009 User:Nopetro who is now known to be a WP:SOCK of User:Mac who was blocked 17:51, 10 November 2008. It is a violation of a WP:BLOCK to engage in WP:SOCK to get around the block. I think that if his many post-block categories are to be deleted, it is reasonable to do it routinely on the judgment of a single admin, citing WP:CSD#G5. Of course, if someone would prefer a discussion, then a discussion is in order. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I didn't realise Nopetro was finally confirmed as a sock of Mac. I knew there was speculation to that effect, but I thought Nopetro had been blocked for other reasons. In that case, I have no problem with speedy deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 18 July 2010 (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:Internal combustion engine vehicles[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. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I fail to see the need to classify vehicles in this way. Especially since vehicles can use several different types of internal combustion engines. It would be better to cleanup, split or rename Category:Internal combustion engine to concentrate of the various types. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite my qualms on your userspace page I agree with the nom. This user was banned for good reason and the indifference from the community to his efforts to introduce another totally new classification system for cars, one that would span a century or so of automotive history and models, speaks for itself, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2010 (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:Wikipedian New York Mets fans[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: What relevance does this have to building an encyclopaedia? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of whether you feel wikipedians having fun is helpful to the project as a whole, you need to nominate the whole or the top (i.e. supracategory) of the category tree or trees (for wikipedians by personal preferences or by fav. sports teams, or fav. baseball team, or fav. NY baseball team, etc.), not just a single 'branch'. Mayumashu (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it is only a user category. I may be useful to coordinate the maintenance of article on the team. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2010 (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:Fighting Records albums[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. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: redlink label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:56, 11 July 2010 (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:Faith & Hope albums[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. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:49, 11 July 2010 (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:Prep school[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. If a disambiguation category is warranted, any editor is free to create it. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as ill-defined (given the different meaning of the term in North-America and Europe). Moreover, redundant with Category:Preparatory schools and Category:Private schools which serves to distinguish the two. Pichpich (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the subcat and the articles are already properly categorised and this recent creation adds nothing. Occuli (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only as a dab category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional vegetarians[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: history repeats itself, delete. The issue isn't necessarily verifiability, but whether being a vegetarian is a defining characteristic for these fictional characters: consensus has concluded that it is not. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as (for the overwhelming majority) a non-defining characteristic. There is already a list covering fictional vegetarians. Pichpich (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this has been deleted at least once before - eg cfd Oct 2008 - although it depended to some extent on an argument by jc37 that was too subtle for my limited mind. As we have Category:Vegetarians (which has survived several cfds), I don't myself see why there should not be Category:Fictional vegetarians. (The List of fictional vegetarians would be devoured by the list-deletionists if they see it: no sources, no claim to notability, list cruft etc.) Occuli (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- jc37's argument regarding this category has to do with the perpetual present of fictional narratives. The argument is that we cannot say that something is true or false of a character if it is something that they do or that is done to them during the course of a fictional narrative. As the entire narrative exists in the real world as a singular thing, all parts of it perpetually exist as equally valid states of the character, and all real life descriptions of fictional events are therefore written in the present tense. Ok, that still sounds esoteric... But the example of a character death is the best illustration to make the point. Saying that Darth Vader is dead is a nonsensical statement; instead, Darth Vader dies in Return of the Jedi. Categorizing him as a dead character would be inappropriate because he is depicted as a living character through the rest of his depictions, and unlike in the real world, later events in fiction do not supersede prior ones. We cannot flip back a couple days to when Harvey Pekar was still alive, but we can always watch Star Wars or Empire Strikes Back again. Pekar is dead, even though there was a time he wasn't, but whether Darth Vader is dead depends on within what work of fiction you're talking about (and at what point within that work of fiction). jc37's argument was that the same thing may apply to a character's dietary habits, that vegetarianism may be adopted or rejected over the course of a narrative, thus making an absolute statement of whether a character is or isn't a vegetarian similarly nonsensical when it isn't tied to a particular place within a specific fictional narrative. That wasn't the basis for my deletion !vote in the prior CFD, but anyway, that's the argument jc37 was making. postdlf (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. It is non-defining and an irrelevant characteristic. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Abolishthedarkness (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Abolishthedarkness (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author's decision to specify that a character is a vegetarian is a defining characteristic to the character and the continued existence of the category allows for navigation by readers. Alansohn (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a very, very fine point on that. Some characters can be argued to fit this type of category hands down. But those are the ones that 1) exist only in a limited narrative, 2) were created and introduced as a vegetarian, 3) that aspect in a prominent plot point, 4) was written by a single creator or strongly controlled by one. That really limits the population of the category. However, a wider Category:Vegetarianism in fiction might be a better fit since it would allow for the inclusion of the "Always a vegetarian" characters as well as the ones that picked up the trait of the course of a story and the ones that waffle on it. - J Greb (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At present, only five of the 15 included articles even mention the character's vegetarianism. Two of those five only mention it in passing among other traits; that only leaves three of the 15 for which their vegetarianism is discussed as a substantial element of the character (Count Duckula, Lisa Simpson, and arguably Aang). Those odds don't provide much basis for believing that this element is typically defining for fictional characters. So I'm leaning towards the same deletion conclusion I had in the prior CFD, unless someone can persuade me otherwise. postdlf (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (COI: closed previous discussion). I still haven't seen anything convincing that would make me believe that this is often defining for characters. Postdlf's survey is telling, i think. If this is being used improperly for 67% of the articles in the category, deletion is the best solution here, as it was before. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 19 July 2010 (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:Microcomputers with non-standard form factors[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. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The articles so categorized do not seem to mention this factor at all, and I can see precious little about this anywhere in Wikipedia. Seems to be WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE and non-defining. If more technically adept people than me come along and prove me wrong, and I'll be glad to be so proven, in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the parent to this category is "motherboard form factors", and there are standards for that, any that do not conform to a motherboard standard would be a non-standard motherboard (motherboard standards on the PC side of things are XT, AT, mini-AT, ATX, etc) there are also system unit case form factor defacto standards (which is why generic cases all look about the same size and layout) (like XT, AT, smallfootprint desktop, full tower, mid-tower, mini-tower, microtower)... 76.66.192.55 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So what's "standard", exactly? --Vossanova ^o< 19:00, 13 July 2010 (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:Scheduled elections in Canada[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 back to where it started. — ξ ^xplicit 04:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Scheduled elections in Canada to Category:Future elections in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In Canada many provinces do not have fixed election dates and are called at the whim of the governing party, even federally for example the government has not followed its fixed election date law. The rename used to be the old name until someone changed it. Þadius (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, that's a very good point, unfortunately its difficult to overrule a discussion that's so recent. 117Avenue (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it probably would have been better to wait for this discussion to finish. Seems like there are several options that could be better. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be good to do all the "scheduled elections" at once. Perhaps we should renominate all of them under one nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think that would be a good idea. Based on the discussions, we should be expecting different outcomes by country. So a bulk nomination would, in my opinion, not be wise. The first renomination is showing a broad set of options including ones not mentioned in the bulk nomination or the DRV. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay. Till then, ~~Keep or rename to something other than "Future"~~, but I can imagine changing my opinion after the July 8 nomination closes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Rename as nominated to match close of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_8#Category:Scheduled_elections_in_Australia.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, because as noted here, the hostility to the word "future" is misplaced. Let's just use the simple, clear and unambiguous word. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This is not a case of WP:CRYSTAL we know that there will be an election but do not know precisely when. Unless there is a coup-de-etat, it will certainly happen, so that this is not mere speculation. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also CFD 2010 July 14: Future elections in Europe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not opposed to it being renamed something like upcoming elections or expected elections or using some other word with an ambiguous future tense type meaning. I just think that scheduled isn't one size fits all. --Þadius (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2010 (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.