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.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 22:54, 6 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:Television series set in Saskatchewan[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.
Rename per nom. Six articles is sufficient (even one would be sufficient if it's part of a comprehensive geographic diffusion of a parent category), and more can still be added which haven't yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 8 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Consistency - parent and grandparent cats are Television shows set in Ontario/Television shows set in Canada Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to the Canada cat. These sub-cats are not large enough to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The fact that a category is incompletely populated (I can already think of a dozen shows that haven't been added yet right off the top of my head) doesn't automagically make it fundamentally invalid — even if it were actually too small to be justifiable, which with 26 articles and two subcategories it already ain't. And even if the upmerge were somehow necessary, the target would be the Ontario subcategory, not the cross-Canada parent. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep; 26 articles is enough. Considering the role of Toronto in Canadian artistic life, it's not surprising there would be a large number. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 11 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.
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.
Upmerge to the Canada cat. These sub-cats are not large enough to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom — a category of one is large enough to be justified when it is (or can become) part of a comprehensive geographic diffusion by state, province or territory. One minor thing, though — per Canadian naming conventions, the category name should be Category:Television shows set in Yukon rather than "the Yukon". Although people do have a habit of saying "the Yukon" in casual speech (the same way they say "the Ukraine"), the Canadian contingent has a long-established consensus to use the formal and official usage rather than the vernacular one. Bearcat (talk) 06:25, 8 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.
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. The phrasing "set during" is needlessly restrictive, as a novel can be about the American Revolution but not be set in it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Seems to work quite nicely. Occuli (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The new name will allow inclusion of works directly in the cat for cases where there are too few novels to justify their own cat for that specific revolution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its (Category:Novels by revolution) subcategories only categorize novels' settings. This is completely different from a fictional telling of an aspect of a revolution.Curb Chain (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me too. Occuli (talk) 08:50, 13 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.
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.
Merge None of these cats are more than 10 articles, and all except two under 5. Also with schools switching what conference they are in periodically, the current cat structure would in theory force splitting of the list based on which conference these coaches were with, when the lists are meant to include all head football coaches the institutions ever had, not sub-sets for when the institution was in a given conference.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 7 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:administrative close: category was speedily deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Working with Blade and Elen on this problematic editor's crazy category creation (now blocked), for any categories only created to place one person in, we are emptying them and csd'ing them, takes (and wastes) less time. This is what I have done, please delist this. If you have any concerns, please contact Elen of the Roads. CaptainScreeboParley! 19:07, 6 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: capitalization Rymatz (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is also as easy for the person adding this to move the article or if the move requires an admin, list it at WP:RM. If you look at the current list, I believe that at least 4 of the entries were moved, and no one removed the category from the article. Why, because admins don't look at the articles to see if there is a maintenance category that needs to be changed. They are too busy cleaning up links and dab page and no free use image pages. And apparently the editors don't care either. So, with no good way to remove these once they are moved, the category is useless. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, now that I've thought about it, I can't find any real uses for it. Rymatz (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely unnecessary for firearmsCurb Chain (talk) 03:21, 7 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:Criminal behavior inspired by films[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.
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Whether some of the films in this category (e.g. Money Train) inspired crime is also a matter of debate. If this is to be kept, I suggest renaming the category to Category:Films that inspired criminal behavior as its current title is misleading. Rymatz (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The proposed rename says it all. Name a film that has not inspired some form of criminal behavior. The topic is way too ambiguous. How many films have resulted in people breaking into a theater to see the film? How about how many films have not been pirated? Both of these are criminal acts that the film inspired. Oh you meant the plot of the film inspired the behavior! Well was the film based on a book? If so was the book or the film the real inspiration? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category should contain articles on crimes. It does not. This is the type of thing that shouts out "what is the source". Maybe buried somewhere in the articles on these films is sourced evidence that there were criminals who said they were inspired by these films, but I have my doubts. If this category was properly used it would be empty, at least unless there are other articles missing for unspecified reasons, so I think we should just delete this cat. It seems to invite NPOV violations and original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Films that inspired criminal behavior Perpetrators do sometimes act criminally by inspiration. Of course this is rare, and sourcing is even rarer. I see the advantage of keeping this category, but the number of entries would expectedly be small.Curb Chain (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization and per Vegaswikian. Every movie that is illegally downloaded has inspired criminal behavior. If we mean the plot inspired it, it's too difficult to know what role the plot played in forming the criminal's motive and plan. That's the problem with all categories that speak of "such-and-such inspired this". Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization. In other media, Lennon's killer was apparently "inspired" by Catcher in the Rye to commit his murder, while the millions of others who've read the book managed to resist the impulse. Ditto for McCartney's song Helter Skelter and Manson. There could well be value in creating a list for these things, but I don't see these as essential characteristics of the works. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; if the connections can be cited, then a list would be better, and if not there is no place for it in WP. - Fayenatic(talk) 19:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – "inspired" is hardly the right word in any case. Occuli (talk) 08:53, 13 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and useless category Rymatz (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thinks it should be keep, because it is the category to add my own taken images.--—Assassin'S Creed (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't noticed any other category listing images taken by a particular Wikipedia user. Also, they're eligible to be moved to Commons, so if this category should exist, it should be on Commons, not here. Rymatz (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, we don't categorize image files by user, and secondly, two of the three images are not used in or suitable for article space anyway, meaning that the category is totally useless. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We simply do not make categories for users.Curb Chain (talk) 03:14, 7 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.
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.
Comment – an editor who can create Category:Media by parameter should be banned from category edits. I've had a look at the above and at the general thrust of User:Stefanomione's efforts (see eg their talk page, filled with cfd notices and red-linked corpses) - abstruse and scarcely comprehensible categories are being churned out at an astonishing rate. Category:Revolutions by medium is just a silly name. Delete all the above; or should it be upmerge to something. (Category:French Revolution by medium has as its sole top level article Ridicule which seems entirely apt.) Stop Stefanomione! Occuli (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Talk-page contents studies are an unfair way to judge an editors work. They may have created many totally useful and accepted articles that never got discussed because no one disagreed with them. The contents of a talk page tends to focus on the articles someone created that were objected to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept these should be renamed along Category:Coverage of the American Revolution by medium, or something similar because these are not the media by which each revolution occurred but media discussing/covering the revolutions. By the title, I was expecting to see articles about strikes, sabotage, guillotines and such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've dropped Stefanomione a little love note [1] suggesting that he needs maybe another conversation about creating some of these sets of categories. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since we already have Category:Works about revolutions we should move this stuff there. I have no strong feelings in the issue of about/on, but we can call this a merge with no prejudice so if some people really want to call them works on x instead of works about x we can discuss that later on. I am leaning a little towards about but have not thought about it enough to really have a strong preference.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 10 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:Color sequels of black and white films[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 to delete; rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Previously nominated for deletion, but kept. However this should be titled "black-and-white" not "black and white" per the main article. The color/colour debate is for another day... Lugnuts (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely bizarre (and pointless) category, what next 3D sequels of 2D films? CaptainScreeboParley! 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominated. Films are objects, subject to rational and objective categorization. Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having looked through the previous CfD, including the struck-through delete !vote from Otto's blocked sock, I still believe that this is a case of WP:OCTrivial. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial overcategorization; why not Color sequels of black and white novels? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Trivial intersection says "Avoid intersections of two traits that are unrelated…" It gives two examples: Celebrity Gamers and Red haired kings. Black-and-white, on the one hand, and color, on the other hand—as concerns films—are non-trivially related. Film buffs make such distinctions, and such distinctions can be taken into account concerning "sequels". This is purely objective; there is no "downside" to this sort of Category, no matter how few films find their way into it. Contrast this with some of the far more problematic and subjective Categories regarding people's personal attributes and it is easy to see how trouble-free such a Category as this is. There is no reason to discard usable information. Bus stop (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This requires objective and standard definitions of terms that are fluid. Is The Wizard of Oz (film) a blakc-and-white film or a color film? You can not give a staight answer to that question, because when it was made it would definantly have been classed as a color-film, but we probably could find people today that that is the closest to a black-and-white film they have ever seen. So do sequals of The Wizard of Oz go in this category if they use all color and avoid any black-and-white, but then we artifically call it blakc and white. This just strikes me as a bad categorizing plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is all about helping the reader. The reader doesn't have accept everything we say. Our job is done if we've reasonably fulfilled a goal that we've set for ourselves that coincides with something likely to be useful to readers. The reader obviously has to interpret what they read in terms of their own purposes. I think this is true of most other categorizations as well. Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few films on the borderline like Wizard, but not many. Categories are always going to be a rough guide, and not deal with every possible exception DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is my point. Categories are always going to be a "rough guide". Well put, DGG. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 11 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:WP:PROD is "PROD", not "Prod". Even better, we could spell it out in full. (I considered the name "Proposed deletion templates", but that sounds as if the category contains proposed templates that are deletion-related.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "Prod" is not a clear abbreviation on wikipedia; I had to search for "prod" before I knew what it meant.Curb Chain (talk) 11:09, 6 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.
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.
Comment Previously nominated here (closed - no consensus). Lugnuts (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a delete to me: the 'keep' arguments apply to all the examples given in WP:SMALLCAT (and are thus contrary to policy). We don't have 'Spouses of X' schemes for a specific person X (we have 'First lady' schemes but that is different). There would be a possibility of a rename to 'Family of Henry VIII of England' and addition of other articles: there are family schemes eg Category:Henry Ford family. (But then is it 'Family of Henry VIII of England' or 'Family of Henry VII of England', or 'Family of Elizabeth I of England'?) If kept it should be renamed to Category:Wives of Henry VIII of England per Henry VIII of England. (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is in no category related to his spouse or her family, as far as I can tell. Diana, Princess of Wales is in Category:Mountbatten-Windsor family but not not in any specifically Prince Charles related category.) Occuli (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the category on its own. It has nothing to do with his relationship to families and such. It's the historical relevance of Henry the VIII and his six wives. Henry the VIII set a precedence in the Roman Catholic church when he divorced Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn. His history with his wives not his relation to the royal family (although he happened to be a royal). Anne Boleyn went on to birth his daughter, the next queen of England, Elizabeth I, and was beheaded because he was fooling around with Jane Seymour (though the excuse was because she did not give birth to a male heir). The history of the wives of Henry the VIII is very complicated and intermingled, and that is why a category for them makes sense. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very useful category. The love life and the many wives of Henry the VIII is well-documented, and many people would want to have a place to see who these women were. A category would work for this. There were many movies made about Anne Boleyn, one of his most famous wives, most recently The Other Boleyn Girl. His wives are actually of historical interest, (see google search) there are even books written on the topic. So to delete the category would do a disservice to amateur researches and those interested for their own specific reasons. In contrast, the husbands of Elizabeth Taylor have not reached this amount of fame or research.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Useful' is not a valid argument. Researchers will read the article on Henry VIII, not look around for a category which should have never have been created in the first place. Occuli (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come again? What is the point of WP if useful is not a valid argument??? Categories are made for easy navigation. Are you not a researcher? Have you never used a card catalogue in the library? These were shelves we had that used to categorize things for easy searching. We could look up things by topic and last names. It was really great, then computer databases were invented. That is why categories are useful on WP, because when researching, you must narrow things down through grouping, otherwise, we are search mindlessly like a needle in a haystack. By saying useful is not an argument, maybe we should do away with categories altogether. And you are also assuming that all researchers do their research in the same ways. Frankly, I use categories and grouping first when I research. Then I read articles within the categories. So categories are very important and useful for my way of research.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eg see WP:USEFUL - arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Look, if I were researching the wives of Henry VIII, I would just go to Wives of Henry VIII which is far more informative than a category. Occuli (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Henriettapussycat - topic is notable and defining. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this better done via template? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically yes, but this should go hand-in-hand with the category, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Henry VIII is not the undisputed holder of the name enough to be the designated name of a category, than this should be renamed to Category:Wives of Henry VIII of England if kept. If Elizabeth Taylor's 7 husbands are a classic example of overcat, than how can we justify creating a category of Henry VIII of England's 6 wives?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument for an article, not a category. Occuli (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing in favour of a category, I was just pointing out one of the obvious reasons users are probably drawing the distinction between the two. The fact that they are probably doing so on article-appropriate grounds is another issue. But I take your point ... Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The wives of Henry VIII is not "comparable" with Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor. Henry's wives are central players in games of great national and even international significance. Discussion of Henry's wives is a serious scholarly subject. The readers surely will expect to find this category. "Useful" to readers is a compelling argument for having a category. The wives should be removed from the parent category, Category:English royal consorts. Structured categories are a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue with classifying people as "husbands of Elizabeth Taylor" is not that it is not "serois" or "scholarly" eniough, it is that if we start allowing cats of x persons spouees, where will it end? The husbands of Elizabeth Taylor is clearly disallowed because it is too small to be useful, so any spouse-group that is smaller would fail even more. Anyway why just "wives of Henry VIII" and not "Wives and mistresses of HenrY VIII"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I do think that strictly speaking the nominator is on solid ground here. Most comments above seem to be consciously or unconsciously thinking about this in terms of "what would we think of a WP article of this name?" But this is a category, people, and the guideline clearly applies. The information will not be wiped from WP—we can make a template and have lists with countless redirects from various phrases. But per the guidelines we don't need to group the six individuals together in a category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that this is an eponymous category for Wives of Henry VIII and its subsections, in which case the article needs a different name and its category taken out of 'people' (eg 'Henry VIII and his six wives' or 'The six wives of Henry VIII'). Occuli (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The example in the rule is not of historical importance, unlike this. Being of historical importance can justify a good many things as encyclopedic. The reason for just "wives" is that his sequence of wives is a common trope. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 11 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.
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) 21:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Note that it is linked by an instance of {{catseealso}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 6 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.
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 C2A. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:46, 8 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:Beyazit's sons in Ottoman interregnum[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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Technical nomination found doing cleanup. Was listed as a speedy but not sure what the reason was. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:34, 6 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This will hold women in computer science careers and articles related as well as match the article: Women in computing, which can serve as the main article for the category . Henriettapussycat (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -The wome x is the standard form. See for example Society of Women Engineers. This is the way that any orginzation that is composed of women in a given field will generally name itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again this society was founded 60 years ago and people often change their minds on how they like to be referred in a matter of that length of time. For instance, it was perfectly acceptable to say "retarded" 60 years ago. It is now considered a slur for those with disabilities and the term "intellectual disability" is preferred. Some women prefer to be known as their career first, not as their gender first. Considering the fact that I'm a woman myself, you're getting it from the horse's mouth.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match parent article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is. "Computer scientist" means something distinct from "person who works in computing", and I'm concerned that the value of the category will be diluted if there's temptation to include in it anyone who's ever used a computer. Also, I'm a bit confused about Henriettapussycat's comment "Some women prefer to be known as their career first, not as their gender first" -- don't both "Women in computing" and "Women computer scientists" put the (sometimes-presumed) gender of the people in question first? SparsityProblem (talk) 06:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before suggesting this change, I asked a friend of mine who is a computer engineer if the name would be appropriate. He seemed to think so. But I am willing to suggest Category:Women in computer science as a compromise. Also to your question--literally and semantically, yes it does put the woman first, but figuratively it does not.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support "Women in computer science". SparsityProblem (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the point of creating a seperate category when we can have one that can include both types of articles and name it Category:Women in Computer Science. It also defeats the purpose of why I even suggested the name change. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand my explanation below? Elizabeth France, UK Information Commissioner 1994-2002, was a woman in computing, but she's a career civil servant, not a computer scientist/engineer. - Fayenatic(talk) 08:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Occuli is spot on. The existing name is clear as a sub-cat of people by occupation; if and when there is more than one non-biography article on the theme, by all means create a head category "Women in computing". Although Category:Women engineers was just moved to Category:Women in engineering, but that had three non-biographical articles. See CFD July 27. The proposed title is less clear and useful, as it would include e.g. female Government ministers and regulators who have held computing-related responsibilities for a time, even though their own qualification/occupation is politician/lawyer rather than computer scientist. - Fayenatic(talk) 18:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The accepted term is computer scientist. "Women in Computing" would at its face include Category:Harvard computers, who since they were the people doing the computing, not having machinese do it for them, are not computer scientists but were clearly in computing (and were all women). I am not sure we need this category at all, but if we keep it it should be with its current name. I just noticed I already voted on this, but it is a very unwise idea, since the rename would include a lot more people who never touched what we would call a "computer" than just the Harvard computers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are a lot of different terms for people who do different things in computer science. My father is a software engineer. There are computer scientists, there are programmers. I used to write simple programs as a child. A category name like Category:Women in Computer Science would make sense and sort of serve as a blanket category for all of these women. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:58, 9 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.
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 this and Category:War fiction to Category:Wars in fiction. There is clear consensus for a change to something like "War in fiction," and some linguistic jockeying to deal with the fact that these are categories by individual war. I believe that putting an "s" on the end of "War" solves that problem.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This parent category has many subcategories that my be duplicated in other's subcategories, but still within this parent category: thus, "War in fiction" is a broader term.Curb Chain (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do something – this is a subcat scheme for Category:War fiction, not Category:Fiction (as most fiction is nothing to do with war). This is such a shambles that it would be better (but impossible, unfortunately) to return to a pre-Stefanomione state of relative bliss. Rename to Category:War fiction by war and re-parent might possibly work. Occuli (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Media by war. All contents of "War of Foo in fiction" will be novels, films, comic books, video games, etc; which are all media. There is non-fiction media about wars as well (such as history books or documentary movies), but that may be arranged with subcategories. In fact, we don't need to talk about "fiction" at all: for any "War of Foo", we would have "War of foo media" and, within it, "War of foo novels", "War of foo documentary films", etc. Cambalachero (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they're not "all media" -- not in our sense of the word. Category:Media is just a soft redirect to Category:Mass media, which in the description is primarily for things "envisioned and designed to reach a large audience, like radio, television, magazines, newspapers and the World Wide Web." "Novels, films, comic books, video games, etc." are more properly categorized under Category:Works by medium, which I suggest you check out. I'm afraid you're repeating User:Stefanomione's own error, one which has been roundly repudiated here at CfD, so far, and which he now acknowledges. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think that merge would be good, as this category segregates fiction from documentaries. - Fayenatic(talk) 08:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed. But that's not a function of this merge: this is an x of y change only. Both the source and target are expressly for "fiction" works. We do have higher level "media" categories -- some which may need to be renamed -- that group fiction and non-fiction about war. And of course Category:Films by war has the docs by war sub-cat in it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was on Cambalachero's vote to "Merge to with Category:Media by war". I have no objection to Shawn's proposed renaming. - Fayenatic(talk) 13:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. A few of the more recent CfD for Wars by foo/foo by war areCambalachero's, who seems to have been caught up in Stefanomione's confusion over what is media and what is a creative work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But look at how underpopulated Category:War fiction is. I think we could easily group subcats for both Foo fiction by war and fiction by foo war in this one category, using the sort key to arrange things, as we do elsewhere. Your passion for creating "this by that" or even "this by that by this" container categories is a big part of the problem, in my view. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 11 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.
