Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 September 14

< September 13	September 15 >

September 14[edit]

Category:New York Giants (baseball)[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:New York Giants (baseball) to Category:New York Giants (NL)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There have been multiple baseball teams called the New York Giants (e.g. New York Giants (PL)). This also brings this category into line with its related categories such as Category:New York Giants (NL) players and Category:New York Giants (NL) field personnel. Dewelar (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as proposed. Pichpich (talk) 22:51, 16 September 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:Worked for WWE, WCW, ECW and TNA[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 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This may be significant enough to support a list, but in categories we generally do not categorize sportspeople (or performers, however you want to categorize pro wrestlers) by the intersections of various leagues/organizations/events they have been in over the course of their careers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I was about to say it is a quadruple intersection but none of the 4 required supercats seem to exist. Category:Professional wrestlers seems to have no subcats by competition (except Category:Tough Enough contestants), not even for world champions. Occuli (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a form of overcategorizing performers based on production companies. This is exactly like any of the hundreds of categories for such people as "Disney actors" or "Teen Nick performers" and the like that have gone by the wayside. If there are reliable sources that indicate this is a notable achievement then by all means listify. (WWE Tough Enough was a competitive reality series and because many reality show contestants are notable only as reality contestants their categories are often treated a little differently) Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:42, 14 September 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:Peaches[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 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Peaches to Category:Peaches (musician)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Obviously needs disambiguating to match main article Peaches (musician). The principal meaning is at peach. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom + also rename the subcats. Occuli (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And do not delete per all the previous cfd discussions in 2010 of similar categories with 2 subcats which have been either 'keep' or 'no consensus'. (It is not small, with 33 articles and 2 templates.) These were Deborah Cox in Aug 2010, Thievery Corporation and Corbin Bleu in March 2010. Occuli (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you're only "reflecting" the supposed new consensus, right? I mean, it's not like you argued for keeping all of the categories you offer as examples of this supposed new consensus or anything (except for how you actually did). This category does not have 33 articles. It has two. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Category:People has 2 members and is therefore small? Or is this somehow different? Does it follow that there are just 2 people? WP:CAT: "If logical membership of one category implies logical membership of a second, then the first category should be made a subcategory (directly or indirectly) of the second." "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also." QED. Occuli (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the transitive property of categorization. I don't buy it. And just because we can make a category doesn't mean we should make a category and keeping categories for musicians on the basis of having a songs and an albums category virtually ensures that virtually every musician since the invention of the phonograph will have an eponymous category. Is even the most die-hard category navigator going to be served by having tens of thousands of categories named after musicians? Does the average reader, or anyone, really stumble across an eponymous musician category, see Category:Categories named after musicians and wonder, "gee, I wonder what other musicians have categories?" Nonsense. And yes, Category:People has two direct entries (one article and one portal), along with many sub-categories, whose contents are not directly in the category. Ensuring that the contents of a subcategory would also belong in the parent does not mean that the articles in the sub-cat are directly in the parent. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note your seemingly irremediable lack of understanding. In the meantime there are now more subcats. Occuli (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand the reasoning. I just think it's bullshit in service of creating and maintaining worthless categories. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is the sort of small eponymous category which is contemplated by both WP:OC#SMALL and WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. The category contents are interlinked extensively through both the text of its contents and a navigational template and is not of the volume or complexity that suggests an eponymous category is needed. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but don't rename the subcats who don't need disambiguating. Pichpich (talk) 22:54, 16 September 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:Labor Hall of Fame Honorees[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 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per WP:OC#AWARD. The Labor Hall of Fame is administered through the US Department of Labor. We have no article on it and it's not mentioned in the department's article. We generally don't consider this sort of an award for categorization. If kept it needs to be renamed to "inductees" per standard for HoF categories. Listify if anyone wants the information. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there's not even a WP article for this, it seems strange to even consider a categorization for members. Surely this fails the guideline cited by the nominator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there should be an article on this. Wouldn't that be the middle choice between the extremes of nothing at all and a category? TypoBoy (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the sources to support an independent article on the HoF. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:24, 21 September 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:Fabor Records artists[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 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Label doesn't have an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:57, 14 September 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:British High Commissioners to South Africa[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, invoking WP:SILENCE. — ξ ^xplicit 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:British High Commissioners to South Africa into Category:British ambassadors and High Commissioners to South Africa

Nominator's rationale: During the period 1961-1991 when South Africa was not in the Commonwealth Britain sent an Ambassador rather than a High Commissioner. Hence the longer category is more inclusive, although both earlier and at present a High Commissioner represents Britain in South Africa and vice versa. Note that pre-Union, Milner was Governor of Cape Colony as well as High Commissioner (not sure about Natal) so had a different role to later High Commissioners. See for list of holders of the positions List of High Commissioners from the United Kingdom to South Africa. Hugo999 (talk) 11:51, 14 September 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:Buzzov*en 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: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buzzov*en albums to Category:Buzzoven albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Buzzoven. Tassedethe (talk) 09:30, 14 September 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:Fjords of New Zealand[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 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fjords of New Zealand to Category:Fiords of New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The usual method on Wikipedia is to use local spellings of words, and in New Zealand these landforms are called fiords. I realise that all the other "fjord by nation" categories use "fj-", but this is no different from, say one or two countries using "neighborhood" rather than "neighbourhood", which we cope with easily enough. Grutness...wha? 09:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – per local usage. (I am surprised to find we have Category:Fjords of Scotland.) Occuli (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would they all count as sea lochs, or is there a difference between the two? Grutness...wha? 10:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of any UK feature being called a fjord. I suppose 'fjord' might be used thus by specialists. Occuli (talk) 11:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom; agree that it is spelled "fiords" in NZ. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:15, 15 September 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:British people in Japan[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 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Merge Category:British people in Japan into Category:British expatriates in Japan

Nominator's rationale: “Expatriates” is the usual term for people of one nationaliity in another country, and “British people in Japan” is in fact a subcategory of “British expatriates”. Hugo999 (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – there seems to some attempt to distinguish between these people (mainly diplomats) and 'expatriates' (subverted by a later inclusion of them all in Category:British expatriates) but the rationale is not clear to me. (A British diplomat in Japan is an expatriate, I think.) Occuli (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I seem to recall this issue of diplomats vis-a-vis expatriates coming up before -- in fact, I think it may even have been in connection with diplomats posted to Japan (or perhaps it was China). In any event, my view is that in general it's best not to categorize diplomats in terms of their particular postings, since they usually move around a good deal during the course of a career. I suppose they could be regarded as expatriates, but I don't think there's any need to stick them in expat categories as individuals. It would probably make more sense to make all of the categories for diplomats sub-cats of their countries' categories for expats. Cgingold (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think the idea is that technically, diplomats in a foreign country are not expatriates in that country, since they aren't subject to the laws and visa requirements of the foreign jurisdiction in the same way that other non-nationals are, and often, their houses and places of work (embassies) are legally made part of the sovereign territory of the sending country, so technically they don't even live and work in a foreign country. But it's all very technical, and I don't see the need to distinguish diplomats in a country from other expatriates there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is basically what I was thinking about, so thanks for laying that all out. What do you think of my closing suggestion that we avoid categorizing individual diplomats in specific expat categories, and instead simply parent each country's entire diplomat category under the respective expat categories? (So in this case, for example, Category:British diplomats would be a sub-cat of Category:British expatriates.) Cgingold (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think what you suggest could be a good idea, probably, in that it would help avoid any disputes over this issue (if there ever have been any, I'm not sure). Although .... it is true that some diplomats never leave their home country at all. For example, an American diplomat who is working as a UN official at UN headquarters may never leave New York City, let alone the United States. So I'm not sure if it's a perfect solution or not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:24, 16 September 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:YG Family[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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:YG Family to Category:YG Entertainment artists

Nominator's rationale: I'm not really understanding the distinction here. YG Family redirects to YG Entertainment, which states that the "YG Family was created in 1996 and refers to the artists under the label." YG Entertainment fits this exact description. The only pages being categorized are the recording artists, so... I don't see the point of this category. — ξ ^xplicit 06:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and to match the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:07, 27 September 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:Star Control[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with zero growth potential. Last game released in 1996. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)~~ Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAz GaA 16:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Small categories are not necessarily useless. It makes sense to group these and the parent category seems full of similarly small categories: Category:Descent (video game), Category:Alien vs. Predator games or Category:Homeworld series. If that's how the parent cat is organized, then the present category should be kept. Pichpich (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 06:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing gained by destroying the category. Just because its small(since people have deleted or merged the dozens of articles that use to be part of it) doesn't mean it isn't valid. Dream Focus 05:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:* I note that based on your participation in this AFD that you have some emotional attachment to Star Control-related content. Can you explain why the existing links within the various Star Control-related article do not serve to connect these three articles? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. The nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision per #3 WP:SK. QuAz GaA 16:08, 25 September 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:Kipling stories with Mrs. Hauksbee[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. Consensus here suggests that this characteristic is equally as trivial and non-defining as similar categories nominated in the past. — ξ ^xplicit 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per several recent deletions in which dividing up Kipling stories based on specific characters being in them was deemed not a good idea. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Keep; unlike the other categories (several of which I voted to delete), the main character has an article, and there are several stories here, not all of which seem to be listed at that article. It is certainly defining. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 06:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with "Stories by character" is that the category cannot tell us what role the character plays in the story. A "story with Mrs. Hauksbee" could be one in which she is the featured character, one in which she is a supporting character or one which simply includes a line like "Mrs. Hauksbee looked up from her glass of gin and was appalled at the goings-on." The article on the character can include sourced analysis on her appearances in the various stories. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the job of a category to "tell us" things, but to group articles that fulfill certain defined criteria. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this were a defining characteristic then the category should be Category:Mrs. Hauksbee short stories, similar to Category:Sherlock Holmes short stories. But it isn't. In the same way we have an article on Doctor Watson but not Category:Doctor Watson stories nor Category:Stories with Doctor Watson. Tassedethe (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is defining - you are making the blatently incorrect assumption that all categories are optimally named! This is an argument for renaming not deleting. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather confused as to how the mere presence of a fictional character within a story makes that character's presence a defining characteristic of the story. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't necessarily, but in these cases the character defines the athmosphere and setting on which the stories hinge. The category doesn't tell you that, but as I keep saying, it is not a category's role to tell you things. Johnbod (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem is that it is not clear that it does (define the atmosphere and setting on which the stories hinge). All these are articles are poorly referenced and only one (The Rescue of Pluffles) clearly states the the story "centres" on Mrs Hauksbee. And the reference [1] barely says that. The other stories mention the character appears but not that she is any more important or central than any other particular character. Kidnapped (Kipling story) is as much about characters called Peythroppe and Miss Castires. Three and – an Extra as much about Mrs Cusack-Bremmil and Consequences (Kipling story) as much about Tarrion. Two of the articles currently categorized Plain Tales from the Hills and Under the Deodars are not stories with Mrs Hauksbee but short story collections. I just don't see much evidence that that this is defining characteristic of any of these stories. It is not the category's role to tell us things? No, it should not tell us more than the article, and if these articles are recategorized as Category:Mrs. Hauksbee short stories then that would definitely be telling us more than the information in the articles. Tassedethe (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I considered both sides of this and had a look at the articles, and I must say I agree with what Tassedethe says above. I can't see evidence that this is a defining feature of each of these stories, and I think we should default to the general practice of deleting categories that categorize stories etc. by character that appears in them. I think we need a stronger case to be made to keep this and rename it to something like Category:Mrs. Hauksbee short stories à la Category:Spider-Man films. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:40, 20 September 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:Cause of death disputed[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 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, this category sets no meaningful threshold for how much of a dispute there must be, or who or how many people are doing the disputing. This poses WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE problems, basically by functioning like a heckler's veto; no matter how much reliable sources agree on a particular cause, this category could be applied to dispute that based purely on minority (or even solitary) opinion. And it seems like a poor proxy for cases where there is simply no agreed upon cause of death in reliable sources. If we can't categorize a person's article by a particular cause of death with confidence, then best practice would be to not have any cause of death category at all. It isn't like there is some tight clockwork system operating here that would be blinkered by some bio articles omitting a cause of death category. postdlf (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not that I am necessarily entirely in agreement with the above well-argued points, but since the Cause of death unknown category was deleted, it doesn't really make sense to keep this one either. Seems like differing standards, especially when the other (the latter) was far more black and white,and less potentially contentious. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is a defining attribute of most of the people in the category. Certainly the first thing I think of when thinking of individuals such as Edgar Allan Poe and Kurt Cobain. Blame people for mis-categorizing articles in the first place and remove the redundant entries. Lugnuts (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "this is a defining attribute of most of the people in the category" but, again, why keep this category if Cause of death unknown, which is far more empirical and less contentious, was deleted. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator's rationale in full. Categories are not great vehicles for expressing uncertainty, mainly because the question remains open of who has to have expressed uncertainty and to what degree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:26, 16 September 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:Corrupt FBI agents[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 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary, amateurish and redundant category. All of those categorized here already have been categorized in either Category:FBI agents convicted of murder, or Category:FBI agents with criminal convictions or Category:FBI agents convicted of espionage, which are more than sufficient. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as an attack category. If not considered eligible, then delete as hopelessly subjective. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree that this is a borderline attack category, and even if it doesn't go that far, it is, as the nominator states, unnecessary, amateurish and redundant. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if only because of the subjectivity of the word "corrupt". Pichpich (talk) 22:56, 16 September 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:Failure mode and effects analysis[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, invoking WP:SILENCE. — ξ ^xplicit 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization with little room for expansion. The scope of the category is also very vague. Wizard191 (talk) 00:26, 14 September 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:Novel names of non-fictional places[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 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I had a difficult time figuring out what this category was for, so it may be best if I provide the definition and a comment on the talk page from the category creator:

Definition: "Place names of locations that actually exist which appear in common writing, tv, movies, or folklore which are specifically used for the interesting, pleasing, or amusing sound of the name. List will vary depending on language spoken."

Comment from creator responding to a request of what category is for: "Abu Dhabi - a faraway place that Garfield the Cat would send characters he didn't like. Ashby-de-la-Zouch - an example of a silly sounding named (real) place in England grabbed out of thin air used by Richard Dawkins in one of his books. Kuala Lumpur - the name of a foreign, exotic, and silly/catchy sounding capital city repeated in one of Weebl's popular internet flash music videos. Paris, Texas - A contradictory/oxymoronic sounding name of a real place in the US that was the title of a 1984 film. Springfield - The name for the 'most generic and common town' in America, currently popularized by The Simpsons. Timbuktu - a somewhat legendary name used in English for a faraway exotic or unknowable place someone could go to or be sent to or come from. It doesn't simply sound cool and novel, it's actually used somewhere popularly/notably. If the name of the location doesn't sound novel to begin with than it falls flat/doesn't convey the point being made, thus it can't simply be anything. The subjectivity is on par with that of 'humor' or 'irony'."

Nomination rationale (continued): OK, so I think I understand what the idea is here, but in my opinion it is a little bit too obscure for a category, and I'm still not exactly sure what would formally qualify a place to be included in the category. If a name is used in a humorous way by anyone to refer to a place in that is "faraway" ("Timbuktu") or somehow "everyday" ("Springfield") or a somehow otherwise generic sense and that quote is verfiable, do we add the place to the list? At the end of the day, it just seems kind of arbitrary arbitrary and not really a defining aspect of the place in question. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - perhaps something like Category:Pseudonymously-named places in fiction or Category:Fictional locations based on real places might be a better scheme? Grutness...wha? 09:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Euh. Skip that - I misunderstood the point of the category. I was thinking more in terms of Gotham City being based on New York, and the like. Grutness...wha? 09:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this is just trivia. Leighton Buzzard was featured in several Monty Python sketches, as were Bolton (Notlob) and Ipswich, but a place would have to almost without features for this to be a defining characteristic. (From Timbuktu to Kalamazoo it's a long way down the track.) We deleted 'James Bond locations' recently - that was at least tightly-defined. If there is enough material for 'Timbuktu in fiction' then that article could go in some sort of category but Timbuktu itself is a city in West Africa, not a 'Novel name of a non-fictional place' (Ouagadougou is overlooked in fiction AFAIK). Occuli (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arbitrary and subjective, completely inappropriate way to categorize real-world places. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning hard toward Deletion - But I might be willing to cut a deal if I can secure agreement on inclusion of Azusa and Cucamonga. (Category creator notified using {{cfd-notify}}.) Cgingold (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even an article on this subject would struggle to be free of WP:OR. One persons exotic and unknowable is another's everyday and boring. Tassedethe (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, there is no need for a "lol funny place names" category even with the additional criterion of "used in fiction." Roscelese (talk) 21:53, 16 September 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.