Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 24

< August 23	August 25 >

August 24[edit]

Category:Maritime English[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Maritime English is ambiguous. This category only contains one article in it in any case, and it deals with English in aviation, not in maritime fields. I don't think the category is redeemable by populating it with other stuff. Canadian Maritime English isn't really anything to do with Standard Marine Communication Phrases. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a canadian Maritimer myself I tend to agree b'y - delete her Mayumashu (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). International Talk Like a Pirate Day was added to the category. Enough said. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 28 August 2011 (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:Far-left politics[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The meaning of the term "far left" is specific to individual writers. The media today refer to progressive Democratic politicians as "far left", while more typically it is used to refer to political parties to the left of the Communist Party. The category is unneccessary because there already exist specific terms to describe all the ideologies of the Left, viz., "anarchist", "trotskyist", "maoist", etc. Also, it has not been populated to any extent. The "far left" in the U.S. for example includes only the Weather Underground and the Black Panther Party, France has subcategories for trotskyism and anarchism, India for maoism.

Also nominate the following sub-categories:

TFD (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least as a container category. Like its counterpart Category:Far-right politics, "far-left" refers to politics outside of the mainstream, and is useful for classifying extremist elements and distinguishing them from popular movements. The assertion that "the media" refer to "progressive" politicians as "far left" is spurious; plenty of sources will disagree that Jim DeMint or Nancy Pelosi are "far right" or "far left," but there will be far less contention about Tom Metzger or the United Freedom Front.- choster (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we cannot provide a definition for far left. Social liberal, social democrat, democratic socialist, Communist, Trotskyist, Maoist, anarchist - where do you draw the line and say that they are far left? What source supports that call? TFD (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article, so no grand unifiying definition is required. It is a category and all that is needed is a reliable source to describe the subject of the article being categorised as extreme/far left. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all undefinableCurb Chain (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Far-right politics should be deleted as well.Curb Chain (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with TFD that there is a problem of definition. The world is not symmetrical; "far-right" is far more clearly delineated within the literature and probably more definable in real life given commonalities between groups. As a case in point, I can't find any university press published books on google with "far left" or "extreme left" in the title, but seventeen with "far right" or "extreme right" (which is why the corresponding far-right category should remain). "Far-left" (beyond its vague meaning of pro-Soviet and/or anti-capitalist) is not a real category; it's an artefact of a unidimensional lay modelling of politics. Deleting may offend our sense of symmetry, but we need to reflect good sources, not political insults. It also points up the case for looking at the page Far-left politics, which is threadbare, if anyone wants something to do.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any university press published books on google with "far left" or "extreme left" in the title? How about this book[1] --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find it because it's not published by a university press. It appears to be a thesis. It formed a journal article here. See discussion below.

Keep all. What is published in reliable sources is sufficient to determine categorisation on a per article/topic basis, and for borderline cases we have WP:RSN or even WP:NPOVN to guide us. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source for your definition of "far left". What groups are "far left" and what groups are merely left? TFD (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need no grand unifying definition. A reliable source will tell us whether a particular topic warrants inclusion into this category, like this University Press published book[2]. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your link does not use the term "far left", let alone provide a definition, which I expect should be required in order to have a category. TFD (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So in your view "far left" and "extreme left" not the same? So is "extreme left" to the left or right of "far left"? Seriously, you seem to be suggesting we ignore RS and categorise articles on the basis of our personal OR. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a university press published book. It appears to be a thesis by someone at Nuffield. The article that came out of it is here. If far-left just means Trotskyist, then we have lots of categories for that already.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the this paper was published in a peer reviewed academic journal, that is even better. Good find Vsevolod. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what are the criteria for inclusion? Being French and Trotskyist? Being to the left of the French Socialist Party? The point is that there does not appear to be a clear comparative definition of "far-left politics" except how groups get placed on a political spectrum within any one country, and without much analysis if any. The British Conservative Party officially favours nationalised health care, rights to abortion, gun control, and is against the reintroduction of the death penalty. That puts their ideology in the popular understanding where on the spectrum? (clue - it depends in no small measure on them not being the Labour Party).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vsevolod, you are asking how long is a peice of string without the benefit of looking at the source: the ball of twine. The approach ought to be: we have topic XX, RS sources describe XX as connected with "Far left politics", therefore we can include XX into Category:Far-left politics. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am asking what this category applies to. String doesn't come into it. "Extreme left" (not far left, as TFD notes) is a term specific to French politics, viz extrême-gauche. We tend to use labels of "right" and "left" quite sparingly (note how empty Category:Right-wing parties is). You appear to be arguing for a category of "groups labeled at least once in at least one sentence in at least one peer-reviewed source as 'far-left' " which isn't really how we should be doing things.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Extreme left" is term specific to French politics? Somebody forgot to tell the author of this book "The far left: an exposé of the extreme left in Britain". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. That you're having to scrabble around to find an out of print book by a non-academic publisher that got little enough attention at the time rather proves the point. Surprising as it may seem, "far-left" is in practice not treated as a coherent ideological category in academic sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep useful category, just as valid as Category:Far-right politics. If deleted, it can be said we are approaching the situation of the far-left dominated German Wikipedia, where there's a s*load of items on far-right politics and at the same time nothing on far-left politics (note it the adminsitrative sanction viz. page protection) - as if the latter did not exist. We don't wanna see a situation like that developed in our wiki, too. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 07:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one's suggesting we get rid of our coverage of Trotskyist, Maoist, communist, anarchist, etc. ideologies and groups. It's just that unlike "far-right", which is a term describing groups identified in RS as having much greater commonality, "far-left" isn't actually a category employed with any consistency or clarity in RS. It may seem weird, but you can see the struggle Martin Tammsalu is having finding RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove with RS that "far-right" is any more consistently defined than "far-left". LittleJerry (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly give very strong evidence for it. There are, for example, many academic books that examine far-right organisations across several countries. Here's a selection. They not only use the term as a concept with which to compare groups across countries, among the books there do not appear to be significant differences in what counts as far right.

Right Wing Extremism in the 21st Century (Taylor & Francis)

The extreme right in western Europe (Routledge)

Shadows over Europe: the development and impact of the extreme right in Western Europe (Palgrave Macmillan)

The media and the far right in Western Europe (Cambridge University Press)

The far right in western and eastern Europe (Longman)

The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right (Routledge, obviously)

These were what came up on my google books search in the first couple of pages of a search on "far right" which were comparative (there's a lot of stuff on the US too, and individual countries). Note that the converse search on this page for books analysing the "far left" among academic imprints yielded very little indeed. A lot of editors here have said "we know what far left means", but that's not following the sources. Serious books will describe certain politicians as "charismatic", but there is no Category:Charismatic politicians. A category which in effect says that its members are in some way similar needs to be more than "they were described with the same word once". There needs to be evidence that the word is actively being applied and in the same or similar way.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VsevolodKrolikov makes the quite superb point that we seem to be driven here not by what sources actually describe subjects as, but by a "sense of symmetry". If we cannot reliably define "far left" in a globally consistent manner (as we can with "far right") then these categories will be populated by a hodgepodge of different things with widely varying definitions. That's arguably an abuse of the categorisation system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The category is currently populated with a large number of articles that editors have placed into it over time, based upon their editorial evaluation of reliable sources. This requirement to define a some kind of "globallly consistent definition or else the category should be deleted" is an attempt to fix something that isn't broken. I see no evidence what so ever that the articles listed are mis-categorised, where is the evidence that placement of this category is being edit warred over specific articles? As long as this category remains extensively populated there really isn't any justification for deleting it. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is adequate understanding that various groups are far-left. In general this label should be applied with proper sources, but no one has argued Trotskyists are anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Trotskyism and Category:Trotskyists; we shouldn't duplicate them with something less clear. In general the role of an encyclopedia is to inform people, not reinforce what they thought they knew. I stress again, it may be surprising that, following RS, "far left" isn't a coherent category in the way that "far right" is, but that's the glory of an encyclopedia - not just finding stuff out you didn't know, but finding out that stuff you thought you knew but were wrong.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete arbitrary inclusion criteria; what's far left for one isn't for another. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing arbitrary about using reliable sources. If sources A, B and C state XXX is "far-left", then that is sufficient criteria for including XXX into the category. It is not up to us to formulate some global criteria, that would be synthesis. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are groups and movements that are considered to be far-left. If an editor has a problem with how an article is categorized than it should be discussed on its talk. As a editor above points out, there have been no wars over labeling the articles. LittleJerry (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep a reasonable and common grouping of the articles and the subcategories and their articles. One would be hard put to find another term (group) into which these items might fit. Far-left is the term used in the descriptions of such politics. Hmains (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a messy subject (because the boundaries are sometimes blurry), but I think every reader will know that. The category will convenience far more readers who want to learn more about the subject. Even if someone objects to a particular group or category being put in this category, no one really disputes that the subject the category describes actually exists. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2011 (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:Unused buildings and structures[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 Abandoned. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Unused buildings and structures to Category:Disused buildings and structures

Nominator's rationale: This category was originally at Category:Abandoned buildings and structures, but last year was renamed to Category:Unused buildings and structures in an out-of-process move. Unused was not a good choice, because it implies that the buildings were never in use. Disused would be more accurate. Rename. - Eureka Lott 19:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename back to Category:Abandoned buildings and structures. This better matches the names on the subcategories. Which ever way the discussion goes, the subcategories may need a follow on nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that further renames may be needed, depending out the outcome of this discussion. I suggested disused because (unlike the word abandoned) it doesn't have any judgement attached to it. Dead malls, for example, are disused, but very few of them are actually abandoned. They're mostly or entirely vacant, which is far from the same thing as abandoned. - Eureka Lott 18:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Abandoned This is the term people really use. We should reflect actual usage where possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2011 (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:iPod Touch games[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is redundant. The parent category ("iOS games") should encompass any games that run on the iPod Touch. The reason why there is a similarly named category, "iPad games", is because there are some games that have been optimized for use on the iPad. There are no games that have been specifically optimized to work on the iPod Touch in a way different than they work on the iPhone and iPad. Brian Reading (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BrianreadingCurb Chain (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2011 (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.

Sports festivals 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, revisit the merge question if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sports festivals by country to Category:Multi-sport events by country

Category:Sports festivals in Canada to Category:Multi-sport events in Canada

Category:Sports festivals in China to Category:Multi-sport events in China

Category:Sports festivals in Denmark to Category:Multi-sport events in Denmark

Category:Sports festivals in India to Category:Multi-sport events in India

Category:Sports festivals in the Netherlands to Category:Multi-sport events in the Netherlands

Category:Sports festivals in the United Kingdom to Category:Multi-sport events in the United Kingdom

Category:Sports festivals in the United States to Category:Multi-sport events in the United States

Many others to follow by speedy nomination if this goes through.

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Sports festival" has no clear meaning distinct from "sports event" or "sports competition", unless it means multi-sport event which is the target of the redirect at sports festival. I raised this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Multi-sport events#Categories for sports festivals, with some agreement, and recognition that cleanup would be required to move single-sport events up afterwards. One contributor there said that "Single sport tournaments like world championships or world cups [are] also considered as sport festivals", and another said that there is a common idea between sports festivals and championships: "high profile, top-tier, non-seasonal, host-rotating sporting events". However, I find this a subjective distinction from the head category Category:Sports competitions. In contrast, Category:Multi-sport events not only has a lead article and decent category structure by year and by recurring event, it even has its own WikiProject. Fayenatic (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge everything into the relevant sporting event categories. I am not convinced there needs to be a distinction between single and multi-sports events. If we want the distinction we should start with a category that clearly is meant to be multi-sport, not move a poorly named category into being that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2011 (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:Foods named after 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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Given the huge number of food items that are actually named after places, I can't see that this will be anything but a large unstructured dump of article names if it were fully populated. If it were to be structured with subcategories e.g. "Foods named after places in the United Kingdom", "Foods named after places in France", etc. it would make it more manageable, but ven if it is, I don't actually see the point of the category. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 17:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi SimpleBob.

I noticed the category, and thought it rather cute, and started using it.

But after just a short time it is already growing (mmm - yes - maybe my bad). And as you point out in danger of getting out of hand.

But sub classing into different countries seems reasonable, and if started now timely.

The Point of it - well I know how I'd use it - and the embarrasment of admitting it may make me run from wikipedia in shame. But I'd use it to look up food in places I was to visit, and try to eat it an example.

Icarusgeek (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this category, naturally I would vote to KEEP it. An earlier comment says that "given the huge amount of foods named after places" - well, I think that is all the more reason to keep the category, as it is surely categories which only have two or three examples in them that we do not want. If there are a huge number of categories named after places, it would be easy to populate the category. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The size of a potential category isn't what defines whether the category is valid or not; categories which could have a thousand potential entries can still be invalid and categories which could only ever have one entry can still be valid. Categories exist to group topics by their defining characteristics, not by any random bit of trivia that some people might find interesting. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even though I like it, following numerous precedents avoiding categories with shared naming characteristics. The only exception that seems to be allowed is the naming categories within category:Asteroids. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also add that there is already a category for "Foods named after people", so why do we not keep this category? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A non-trivial number of articles that are or that should be in this category are covered by AOC (in France)/DOP (in Italy), and there may be other regulations in other countries that I am unaware of. These regulations prevent a food product from bearing a particular name if it does not actually come from that place. It's a topic, not just a shared-naming category. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non defining.Curb Chain (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OCAT by shared naming characteristic. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roscelese, with support for the principle that we should have subcategories for countries to improve usability.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please add that there is a use to this category in that might redirect people to names in it, some of which currently are stubs, so that we can work to enlarge them? For example, in the category at present, there is a reference to Dundee cake. If one looks at the article on Dundee cake, one will see that it is currently a stub (and a brief stub at that) which really is in bad name of expansion. There may be a category of "Food and drinks stubs" but I am not sure how many people will look at those. If we keep this category, it might increase the probability that people will see articles such as that on Dundee cake, and hence increase the probability that people will work hard to improve such articles. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do admit that I did wonder how necessary it was to have the cheeses there, since I do appreciate that it is quite obvious that most, if not all, cheeses are named after a place. Perhaps this category should go in "Categories requiring diffusion".
Delete This is categorizing by the nature of a name, not the nature of a thing. We should categorize things by what they have in common, not by the process of how they got their names (and even that we are not really doing). Cheddar Chesse and hamburgers do not belong in the same category because their names come from a place. This might work in a dictionary but is not an appropriate category for an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in response to that last comment, do Beef Stroganoff, Pavlova, Eggs Benedit, Beef Wellington, the Sandwich and the garibaldi biscuit really have much in common? Probably not, but they are all in the category called "Foods named after people". For the sake of parity, shouldn't the person who called for a deletion of this category also calling for the category "Foods named after people" to be deleted? Please let me know what is so special about the category of foods named after people if that one can be kept but this one is to be deleted. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF deals with the fact that "Foods named after people" exists. My interest as nominator was in this category, I didn't know that the other category existed until you just pointed it out, but the fact that other similar categories exist doesn't make this one right. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - certainly not defining. Category:Foods named after people should go for the same reason. Occuli (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not defining; and very similar to the various Category:Eponymous cities and subcats that were deleted long ago. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nothing in common but a shared naming characteristic, which is contrary to guidelines. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I please make a comment about the other category I mentioned here, that of "Foods named after people"? Having just had a quick look at it, it appears to be redundant - there is already a "List of foods named after people". This other category does not appear as yet to have been the subject of a deletion effort - so I wonder how many Wikipedians who called for "Foods named after places" to be deleted will show their credentials in parity, and deal with the other category in a similar manner! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably a good number of them, if it is nominated for discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked into this. There does seem to be a subject beyond Wikipedia of "Lists of foods named after places." The subject has been written about in books and in articles published by reliable sources, including AOL Travel [3] and the Delish website run by Hearst Newspapers and MSN.[4] I think the subject is substantial enough to have just created an article on it: List of foods and drinks named after places (I added drinks because there doesn't seem to be an article on that and it seems substantial enough for a section but not an article itself). The name of a food is very much part of the subject of the food itself -- Boston Cream Pie is very likely the "official dessert" of Massachusetts in part because of the name. Food writer Mimi Sheraton is interested in the subject [5] (scroll down to the yellow highlighted words). When both travel writers and food writers are publishing on this subject (not just on individual foods), I think we should, too. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most foods are called one thing, after a certain place, then on the other side of the world, something identical is eaten. I would be quite pointless to call something after a place when it is just called "pork and milk" (for example) on the other side of the world.Curb Chain (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2011 (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:Albums by liner notes author[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete.

Nominated as the concensus at CfD Albums with liner notes by Greil Marcus was that who wrote the liner notes was is not a distinctive characteristic. I also note some of the entries are where the artist wrote the liner notes on their own albums, which, to me, is even less likely to be a distinctive characteristic. Certainly not something to be encouraged.. Richhoncho (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a defining characteristic of albums. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and outcome of previous CfD. Not a defining characteristic of an album. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is no more a defining characteristic than who wrote a prologue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Writers such as Robert Christgau are significant, and their writings are valued. That Robert Christgau has done the liner notes on an album is significant. See the Google search results from using the category name as a search term: [6]. When Rolling Stone comments that a re-release has "liner notes by critic Robert Christgau", that's a clear indication a category is worth having. This cat should be viewed in the same way as any other cat which list the works of significant writers. I am somewhat concerned that a cat detailing the liner notes of Greil Marcus has already been removed as he is also a very significant writer whose liner notes are highly valued. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator) I only chose persons who were notable for writing liner notes, like Christgau or Hentoff--Cash has won a Grammy for it. It may be the case that a liner notes author is not generally notable, but clearly it is occasionally the case. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The mere fact that a Grammy award is handed out for liner notes doesn't mean that the album is notable for who wrote its liner notes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:45, 1 September 2011 (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:Occult stubs[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: raised on wrong page - please take this to WP:SFD. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Occult stubs to Category:Occultism stubs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Although the topical category, Category:Occult, uses the term Occult that does not work for the related stub category as the term here looks like an adjective. meco (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2011 (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:WWE RAW Arenas[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 11:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category containing every venue to ever host a traveling wrestling circuit. Similar categories have been deleted in the past. TerminalPreppie (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who created this, I feel it is worthwhile as, to be reckoning, it is the first time that all 197 arenas have been listed in one place. It is 100% correct. I will also do a list for Smackdown and Pay Per View events. simonclark (talk) 13.44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete as being non-defining to the venue. You could always make it into a list. Lugnuts (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem notable Rwalker (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-defining/trivial to the venue. If you think its needed, make it as a list, not a category. cmadler (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overcategorization of venue by performance, and non defining of the venue. Reso lute 16:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That a venue once hosted a specific type of event is not defining to the venue. If these venues only ever hosted this, than it would be a different story, but that is not what we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2011 (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:WikiProject New Zealand schools[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. I have created a list of the members of this category at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/school list, should the members of the WikiProject wish to add a category to these schools' talk pages.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: duplicate of category:schools in New Zealand apparently used as part of a nonstandard workflow for checking these articles for vandalism, according to this discussion. Even if it weren't redundant, WikiProject categories should not be used on articlespace per WP:PROJCATS. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per thumperward. There is no reason why wikiproject categories are being placed in articlespace; whatever problem exists needs to be solved in another way.Curb Chain (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move the categorisation to talk space, per the discussion referenced above.-gadfium 20:33, 25 August 2011 (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:Twitches[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization--two of these entries are templates and they can sufficiently navigate users. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:49, 24 August 2011 (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:Clueless[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: Template. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Created Template:Clueless.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These articles can all be easily interlinked and a template could navigate. Only seven articles and some (Beverly Hills High School and Emma) have only a tangential association. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or template per nom, largely because BHHS and Emma should not be in this category, having an entirely independent existence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:05, 24 August 2011 (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:Lists of James Bond henchmen[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: See below. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the scheme Category:Lists of James Bond characters. The notability of the articles is another debate. Lugnuts (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Category talk:Lists of James Bond henchmen records the origin of the category, based on the CFD for lists of allies (also linked below); articles survice AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond henchmen in Die Another Day and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond henchmen in The Living Daylights; this cat forms part of category:Fictional henchmen. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As long as these lists exist it makes sense to have the category. If the lists are not worth having they should be put up for deletion. If most are deleted I would support deleting the category, but with the current number of lists the category can stand. The category does not justify the lists, so their deletion is not effected by my comment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2011 (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:Lists of James Bond allies[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization and the articles should be deleted as well--they are all chock full of inappropriate fair-use rationales and trivia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the scheme Category:Lists of James Bond characters. The notability of the articles is another debate. Lugnuts (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only because as long as the articles are valid, the category is. I'm not sold on the lists either, but I would suggest taking them to AFD. If they fail in that venue, the category will be emptied and without purpose. Reso lute 17:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles have survived AFD, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond allies in Die Another Day in 2008. Category serves a purpose as separate from the head category for James Bond characters, because only this lot also fall within category:Fictional sidekicks. This category for lists was created by merger from this 2007 CFD. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the lists are not worthwhile, they should be put up for deletion. If enough of them go the category should go to. To delete the category because its contents are said to be flawed is to put the horse before the cart. Delete articles if they do not belong, then go after the empty category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2011 (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:Gynecology[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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gynecology to Category:Gynaecology

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. If renamed, (some?) subcats. can be speedy-renamed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - main article seems to be stable at this spelling. However, a redirect category should be left at the alternate spelling. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - I was also going to recommend keeping a soft redirect. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match with parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:12, 25 August 2011 (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:Network-related software[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:Internet Protocol based network software. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Network-related software to Category:Network software

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The suffix '-related' is unnecessary. Because the categories are groupings not necessarily a type system, just calling it 'Network software' shouldn't imply any thing more than it is software 'related' to networks. Cander0000 (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Glad to see we have a category on social networking software. Wait this is not what the category is for. The proposed name is ambiguous. While wordy Category:Internet Protocol network software or Category:Internet Protocol based network software is clearly what the contents are about. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Internet Protocol network software or Category:Internet Protocol based network software. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2011 (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:Global warming controversy[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Recently created category with no criteria for inclusion of individuals. (Films and general subjects might have consensus as to criteria, although extreme films on both sides should probably be included.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this category adds that category:Environmental skepticism does not do. One of them should go.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

supportNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This is delete rather than upmerge, as all except possibly the base article were added, rather than changed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category does not seem to work in a way that has clear inclusion rules. It is not the same as "environmental skepticism" because "controversy" means people debate it, and so that means it can include people with any global-warming related views that are expressed publicly, because any view is debated by someone else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Global warming debate. Whether something is controversial is in the eye of the beholder; it's undeniable that a debate is going on, however. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There would still be no criteria for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since, frankly, basically everything about global warming is controversial, I'd say this category is redundant to Category:Global warming. ('X Controversy' is a bad idea for a category in any case.) Robofish (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2011 (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.