Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 25 May 27 >

May 26[edit]

Category:Schools in Las Vegas[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. Courcelles (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Schools in Las Vegas to Category:Schools in Las Vegas, Nevada
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match name of city category. All of these schools are in the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:16, 26 May 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:Short works[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 3. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Short works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: What makes these "short"? Clearly, a short film is shorter than a feature-length, but a music single isn't a "short album"; it's a single. The inclusion criteria are necessarily widely subjective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a parent category for short films, stories, etc. Maybe the issue is around the singles category being in the wrong category, rather than the Short Works cat needing deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd agree that in this particular case, a top-level category for short things just doesn't work: a short story or film isn't "short" in the same way that a song or EP is simply less than a full length album (and why should the fast-fading album format be the standard by which musical pieces are judged, anyway)? Perhaps you could prune the category to omit the more problematic music sub-cats in favour of just fiction and films and the like, but I'd still say it's WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but omit Category:Singles, and maybe some others. Johnbod (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is already for instance Category:Fiction forms for short stories etc. Cjc13 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 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:UK MPs 2010 who have been public affairs lobbyists[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. Courcelles (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:UK MPs 2010 who have been public affairs lobbyists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is, at best, a list that - possibly - is attempting to make a political point. There is no equivalence in the other lists of UK MPs. If this data is to remain it should be converted to a referenced list. S a g a C i t y (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's a borderline attack category: certainly, it at least appears to be making a political point of some sort. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see any other similar quadruple intersections (nationality + politician + year of election + former profession) and this doesn't seem like a good route to follow. Overcategorisation, at the very least. BencherliteTalk 10:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insinuatory overcategorisation. --Soman (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename broadening it to Category:UK MPs who have been public affairs lobbyists. The previous occupation of MPs is a notable characteristic. "MPs who are lawyers" (too common); "MPs who are scientists" (too rare); "MPs who were journalists" would make appropriate sister categories. I have not looked to see which already exist. These are not trivial intersections. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 30 May 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:Aid in dying[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 to Category:Assisted suicide. Courcelles (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aid in dying (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Decisions relating to death[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. Courcelles (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Decisions relating to death (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - The rationale for this misconceived category escapes my comprehension. The contents are not articles about the making of such decisions -- and I just don't see any need to group the sub-cats together, even if the category were to be renamed. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too vague/crazy to work out. --GodRocks127 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 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.

Death by country[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming subcategories of Category:Death by country to remove the word "Human" (see drop-down box for complete list).
nominated categories

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a follow-up to this discussion, where I suggested it might also be a good idea to remove the word "Human" from the subcategories of Category:Death by country. This proposal has gained a tentative consensus at WikiProject Death. I see no reason to require the word "human" to be in these category names—they were so named only because the first few that were created were named that way. No other death categories include the word "human" anymore, and there's no reason the categories couldn't include info about non-human death, if necessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support SatuSuro 02:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unless there emerges a substantive discussion I'll leave it at that. __meco (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems reasonable & would match the name of the parent category.--BelovedFreak 12:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all Per nom and previous CfD. Lugnuts (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what about non-human deaths? 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concluding comment was "there's no reason the categories couldn't include info about non-human death, if necessary". Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:12, 28 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_May_26&oldid=1074805696"