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:Delete. Per numerous CfDs over the past few months, being in a NRHP district is not defining. The district's navbox template provides better navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only found one missing, and that was fixed. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:53, 13 November 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: Delete Too broad, and not easily definable. It appears that if the show has a female lead, it is listed. Kim Possible is the only show I've seen, and I hardly consider that a feminist tv series CTJF83 22:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inclusion is undefined, but there is no article on feminist television and thus too dependent on individual interpretation and on individual definitions of "feminist." On one extreme, any show with a female protagonist could qualify, on the other, only those featuring some sapphic revolutionary would. Of all the contents of Category:Feminist media, which like all media categories gets crufty over time (Legally Blonde? Fanny Hill?), I think this category is the most tenuous.- choster (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who's done a bit of work in the feminist film/women's film area, I agree the category contents underscore how tenuous and subjective the criteria seem to be. I'd guess that a great many post-Lucy shows starring women have made at least some effort to present their female figures as empowered figures (as well they should). What would the dividing line or cut off be to not be included, I wonder? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please help. There are alot of great television series around the world that can be categorized as feminist television series. I only can pick a few which I have the knowledge of. As a guy who likes watching shows of strong female protaganists like Sarah Connor and Buffy Summers, instead of something that people like Marilyn Monroes typicaly protrays, I urges everyone to make contributions of what I've started. Thanks. Please help of categorizing number of television series which has feminist theme.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need reliable 3rd party sources saying the shows are feminist. A female lead does not equal feminist. CTJF83 03:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd support this category if the articles made some explicit reference to their feminist credentials or offered an obviously feminist critique of something, but I don't yet see that in these articles. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entries are not feminist tv series and as aboveCurb Chain (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely subjective as the current population attempts demonstrate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely subjective/OR category. Buffy, feminist? Not in my book and therein lies the problem. – ukexpat (talk) 18:08, 14 November 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:delete.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. How many things can be said about why this should be deleted? Public display is really ambiguous here. How many wind turbines are not viewable from the surrounding areas? Then from the article, wind farms can be included if they have a visitors center and attract tourists. While there many be some type of category here, this is not it. Delete and when a good clear concise name and objective introduction is available create that category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many wind turbines have visitor centers? Even you if went with Category:Wind farms with visitor centers, it is far from clear that this intersection would make either the wind farm or the visitors center notable. I see this as a trivial intersection, so it is not a supportable alternative. Also, that introduces the center v centre spelling problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...visitor facilities" would deal with the spelling issue, but I take your point. I wonder if the underlying issue is the purpose of the windfarm. It it there to generate a few megawatts, or is it there to promote the idea of windfarms? I can feel this drifting off the point though! --Northernhenge (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find this article in the category as a good reason to delete as not defining. How does a 2.5Kw wind generator on a 10 story building make either defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:51, 15 November 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 both as per Occuli: all content on WP is in an article, so prepending 'Articles on...' is pointless: as such with this removed they simply duplicate other categories.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:48, 13 November 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:Alternatives to conventional railways[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. This is defining in the negative, when the contents are adequately defined by positive categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has been around uncontested since 2006 but I do think it's an example of WP:OC#ARBITRARY, or given the vague use of "alternatives", WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. The description states that it is for "technologies that are like railways in that vehicles move along fixed structures that guide their movements (and typically restrict it to either backwards or forwards), but which differ from conventional railways in that the vehicles do not rest on steel wheels that roll along two parallel rails." The criteria seems highly subjective. A system as commonplace as SkyTrain (Vancouver) is sufficiently "alternative," apparently because it's of one of the Category:Linear motor metros, although it runs on rails and type of propulsion system isn't mentioned in the cat description. It includes articles like Elevated railway, even though such lines are commonplace. It includes People mover, though the parent article states that there is "no clear cut distinction" between many automated people mover systems and an automated mass transit rail system deemed conventional. And in terms of things excluded, a trolleybus can be just as much an alternative to conventional rail, but cannot be included here, I suppose, because the guided route isn't sufficiently "fixed"? In researching this nom, I expected to find similar categories such as Category:Alternative vehicles but did not, and perhaps that's because "alternative" is such a slippery term in the changing world of transportation technology. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up slightly. As far as I remember, I created the category as part of an effort to clean up the parent category which had become unnavigable. If the category is deleted, then what are we going to do with its content? Simply dumping it into Category:Rail transport is not going to be productive, but if you have an alternative organization principle I'd be prepared to listen. I agree that SkyTrain (Vancouver) and Elevated railway do not belong there, but there are less intrusive ways to fix that problem than nuking the category. Finally I don't see what you find "subjective" in the description. It's not quite a model of elegance, but its problem is rather that it is non-intuitive because how hard it tries to set forth objective criteria for inclusion. –Henning Makholm (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the contents would be adequately categorized, even without this cat. So I don't see the need for an alternative principle. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the reason why I'd applied "subjective" to the discussion was that I felt there were some very subjective choices being made (i.e. Skytrain and others) as to what is an "alternative" to "conventional" rail.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 12 November 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:Theatres associated with Gilbert and/or Sullivan[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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Associated is ambiguous. If you get past that we have the ever popular and/or. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this is analogous to 'performer by performance' ('venue by production'). Adelphi Theatre is associated by mention with a multitude of people (although, sadly, neither Gilbert nor Sullivan is mentioned). Occuli (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As all of the above and b/c the two are not related closely.Curb Chain (talk) 23:14, 13 November 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:Aboriginal universities and colleges[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: "Aboriginal", in common parlance, is Australian; it's close to offensive in the United States. If people insist, we can make that two categories to acknowledge the Canadian term "First Nations". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 04:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment: at first glance, I find "tribally controlled" way more offensive than "aboriginal" in part because it almost makes it sound like that control is illegitimate (as in "mafia-controlled") Pichpich (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Canada, the term "aboriginal" is quite common (and constitutionally, the official term), but extends beyond First Nations to include Metis and Inuit, and I see no reason to exclude those groups from this category. While technically accurate, "Native American" is rarely if ever used to describe Canadian First Nations, as it tends to describe Native Americans in the United States. "Tribe" and "Tribal" are quite acceptable in the United States, but generally considered offensive in Canada. Moreover, many of these schools are not controlled by any tribe/nation. In the past, Wikipedia has solved this problem by using the term "Indigenous" which is considered to be inoffensive and inclusive. Can I suggest Category:Indigenous universities and colleges or Category:North American Indigenous universities and colleges if you want to restrict it geographically? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with nom. there were no colleges or universities at first contact in the Americas or Australia, so none are "aboriginal" or "indigenous" in the sense of belonging to pre-contact culture - which also makes Occuli's suggestions inapt as well. What makes them in a category is the tribal or native people's control. But, applying the category in the Americas outside of US & Canada, where recognition of what's tribal/native and what's not is a hodgepodge will be complex. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the noun "Aborigine" is uniquely Australian (and deprecated, at that), but the adjective "aboriginal" is used internationally — frex, it's quite extensively used in the names of Canadian institutions, such as Aboriginal Voices and Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, which are owned and operated by indigenous peoples themselves. For one thing, there are few other non-offensive terms which are properly inclusive of the First Nationsand the Inuitand the Métis; almost any other term you can come up with excludes at least one of those groups. If the term is considered offensive in the United States, then that's certainly a problem that needs to be addressed — but just for the record, that isn't the situation in Canada. That said, "Native American" is not an appropriate solution, for the reason that it's not recognized anywhere outside of the United States as being inclusive of the Canadian nations; using "Native American and First Nations" would exclude Akitsiraq, since "First Nations" doesn't include the Inuit. Accordingly, I'd have to favour Occuli's suggestion; in most cases something involving the word "indigenous" has been the solution used to resolve naming disputes that had to accomodate native/aboriginal-related differences in terminology between Canada and the United States. And Shawn is correct that "belonging to pre-contact culture" is not a precondition of the term; it covers belonging to [Aboriginal/indigenous/First Nations/Native American/whatever] culture at any time in history. Rename per Occuli's suggestion. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 18 November 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.
