Category:Maryland Campaign of the American Civil War[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) 00:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Only the main article and a subcategory for the battles so may well be ocat. If kept, should probably be renamed to Category:Maryland Campaign to match the main article as was proposed in the speedy nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I believe that the standard practice (at least for ACW categories) is for the article about the campaign to be assigned to the battles of the campaign category (in this case transfer the Maryland campaign article to Category:Battles of the Maryland Campaign of the American Civil War.) Wild Wolf (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete There are a number of problems with this category but the main one is that it is essentially a performer by performance category. (Muhammad cartooning is not a separate genre) Moreover, the criterion for inclusion in the category is unclear. Is it sufficient to draw Mohammad in a cartoon or do you only qualify once your cartoon generates controversy? The question may sound silly but it's a real problem because categories should be populated using objective criteria. Pichpich (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OC:SMALLCAT. The controversy seems to be defining for Kurt Westergaard; the article describes almost nothing notable about his career outside of it. He is the only one, however. The other Jyllands-Posten cartoonists seem not to have merited articles, and Lars Vilks seems to have other claims to fame. Since Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy cross-reference each other, a list also seems unnecessary.- choster (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- in view of the notoriety and controversy over the cartoons, I consider that this is not OCAT. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that this is effectively performer by performance. We use articles to describe controversy, not pointless categories. Resolute 17:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - performer by performance (as would be a category for participants in Iran's Holocaust cartoon competition). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2012 (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:Political terms in the United Kingdom[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) 00:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A harmless suggestion -- There is no satisfactory adjective for UK other than "British", though this might technically exclude northern Ireland. Nevertheless, most of the terms refer to the politics of the national government in London. What has happened to Neasden man? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NPOV. Using a contested demonym is not a neutral step when a clear and simple neutral construct is available to preserve neutrality. Use of the non-neutral term "British" is bad enough in most contexts which related to the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland rather to those relating solely to the island of Great Britain, but it is particularly inappropriate to use it for a political term when the contest over the term is political in nature. Support renaming the other similar categories to the neutral non-adjectival format Political terms in foo. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per BrownHairedGirl's rationale. Foo in Country is the typical standard for subcats based around national or sub-national entities. This category is correct, the others need to be changed. Resolute 17:30, 30 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Maybe Delete. It appears that this is focused on the battles in the area of the park. While the article focus on the overview. The article does not specifically mention all of these battles. One would think that the article should be discussing all of these individual battles if they were important to the history or the formation of the park on an individual basis. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to keeping this one if there is where the discussion leads. But in a case like this, how do we determine what articles are about a park? I wonder if the main article needs a navigation template to cover this in a better way. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a park created in 1936 is not a 'defining characteristic' of a battle fought in the 1860s. Oculi (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for recreating. I think the park could be defining if each battle added a section about the battlefield today; text about a memorial on the site and it's part of the park. But I'm not going to support a cat that could be defining if the articles were expanded. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delte per nom. Another case of overcategorization, I'm afraid. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2012 (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:Preserved ruined churches of World War II[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 to something or delete. This is a triple intersection and the category has an introduction to explain what belongs here that is longer then the included articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although I'm open to suggestions for rename.
When did writing a clear explanation as to a category's scope become a reason to delete it? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category names should not be ambiguous or unclear. If you need to write a book about what to include or not include, then the title or the category itself has a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See comment below. These are more than part-destroyed ruins that simply haven't been cleared away yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the name seems accurate, the subjects notable, and liable for growth. The 'of World War II' suffix provides a useful level of detail below Category:Church ruins. Ephebi (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point about "preservation" in the title is that many churches were ruined during WWII, but only a handful were deliberately preserved as monuments afterwards, as these are. This is distinct from both those churches that have simply fallen into disuse and ruin, and also those that were ruined in WWII and simply demolished afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possibly rename). These are churches where some one has taken decision that the ruin should deliberately be preserved as such. The word "preserved" is not redundant. There will also be destroyed churches that have been rebuilt (and are thus no longer ruins). There will also be damaged buildings which are just being allowed to decay. Neither of these has had the positive intervention to qualify as "preserved". Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The meaning of the category title is non-obvious, and despite the lengthy intro in the category text, it remains obscure. Is there any evidence that "preserved ruined churches" is an encyclopedic topic of scholarly study? And what exactly is a preserved ruin? The category text is vague, but what does "preserve" mean in this context? Does it mean that a) the building has not been demolished, or b) that the ruin is a listed structure, or 3) that rather than leaving a ruin to benign neglect, work is undertaken to maintain the fabric of the ruin ... or is it all 3? This all looks to me like original research, but if someone can provide some evidence that this classification is a lot more than something which a editor thought up then I may consider changing my !vote. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Ruined churches of World War II per mangoe. But please listify the more specific intersection. I think vegaswikian's point about the introduction explanation is well taken. In this case, it suggests to me that a list would work better for the category creator's intention. (And no, having a detailed intro is not a bad thing, but a good thing. But I think that that misses the point vegaswikian was making.) - jc37 05:51, 4 February 2012 (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:Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename to match the name used in the article where this name redirects to. Also needs disambiguation since the hat note lists another Cotswold Hills. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Another pointless Wiki-neologism, at utter contradiction to widespread use of the term to describe this well-known area. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the article is Cotswolds, so the nom seems to be in error. Oculi (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2012 (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:Cemeteries in Adams County, Pennsylvania[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: Looks like another case of overcategorization. Probably don't need a seperate category for two articles. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps keep As with a lot of TfT-created categories, no attention was paid to anything outside of Gettysburg. Category:Cemeteries in Pennsylvania might be considered big enough for a "by county" breakout across the state. YMMV, though, and if others aren't sold on that idea I would go along with the proposed upmerge. Mangoe (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge The state category is large but there are so many PA counties that I think that breakdown would go too far.RevelationDirect (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2012 (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:No consensus to delete; rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Films were wine is a relevant or significant plot element are not necessarily films about wine. They are wine-related films, and should be categorized as such. Furthermore, I fail to see that any consensus had emerged in the discussion cited by the nominator. Had I been the closing admin, I would have closed it as "no consensus" and re-listed for further discussion. While there is merit to having consistency, I see no reason to rename every similar category as a slavish response to a discussion that had no clear consensus. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've nominated Category:Moon-related films for renaminghere. The LGBT-related tree is a special construction for that subject, and should not be used as a model for other categories. Seethis recent discussion for when we replaced nearly all "-related" film categories with "Films about" categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not possible to populate such a category without making a subjective call, especially for fiction. Both suggested titles are problematic in their own way. I think it's clear that "wine-related" is too vague but "about wine" isn't much better. I think we can all agree that Sideways is not a film about wine though most would consider it "wine-related". But consider Notorious (1946 film). A certain wine bottle (Chateau Lafite if I remember correctly) is an essential plot element. Does that make the film wine-related? I don't think so but others obviously disagree. My point is that categorization should be more or less disagreement-free. Pichpich (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, create Category:Films about wine if warranted. I essentially agree with Pichpich about this. If a film is about wine, we should be categorizing it. But to categorize films as being "wine-related" is just too subjective, too squishy, and ultimately not terribly helpful. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wine is the content or topic of these films. It's not like the films are sold with wine, made of wine, or in some different way related to wine. So "wine-related films", "films about wine", and "wine films" mean the same thing; it's a stylistic choice. As Babette's Feast is a movie about food (as well as being a romance and a drama), Sideways is a movie about wine (as well as being a romantic comedy). (The article on Sideways even discusses the impact it had on the industry, hence the article is related to encyclopedic coverage of wine in films.) If we need a category which includes Mondovino but excludes Sideways, create Category:Documentary films about wine. And certainly I wouldn't delete unless the new "subcategory" is populated first, or we'd lose this grouping of articles. An upmerge target is Category:Films about food and drink. – Pnm (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is wine the topic of Sideways? Or is Wine Country simply the backdrop of a fairly classic tale of male friendship? I don't think anyone seriously thinks that Alexander Payne is trying to express something deep about wine and Sideways is much less about wine that Babette's Feast is about food. A category that includes Mondovino, Bottle Shock and Wine for the Confused makes sense because there can be absolutely no doubt that these films are about wine. But we should avoid categories where the criterion for inclusion is so obviously subjective. Pichpich (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say wine is the topic of Sideways, but it's a significant part of its content. I also think it's objectively true that the article Sideways contributes to encyclopedic coverage of wine in fiction and, given the applicable section, the wine industry. – Pnm (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. After removing one article that is not about the cemetery, we are left with one. If someone can show that this TfT creation has more articles and should be kept, feel free to do said cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2012 (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 or upmerge or something. Some of the same problems as the previous nomination. Neither of the two articles in the category discusses them being triumphal. However in looking at the articles, text not withstanding, they may well be triumphal. If so, a rename to Category:Triumphal arches in India would be in order. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2012 (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 or something. Found this while looking at some other stuff. This is basically a triple intersection for a category tree that does not appear to be over populated. We tend to avoid terms like modern since they are subjective and don't cover a specific time frame. I don't know what the best solution is here. Upmerge, delete or rename? Whatever we decide here it may affect other categories. Waiting to see how the discussion goes before adding them. Otherwise, there may be more cleanup nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2012 (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: The category already exists in the right hierarchy, doubt there's anything to merge, but if there are a couple of new entries, maybe merge and then delete the newly created one. —SpacemanSpiff 05:11, 26 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Isn't this category worded in a way that is POV? I understand the idea behind the category, I'm just not sure if we can word it in a neutral way. Any suggestions for renaming would be welcome. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every major company has a CSR program now, leaving the category basically undefining.- choster (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per choster.--Lenticel(talk) 03:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the term seems to be used solely by public relations specialists and by activists. There's no hope of building a category around that. Pichpich (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:FTSE4Good companies. The FTSE listing authority does list major international responsible businesses in the FTSE4Good stock index. It defines a range of SR criteria that a business must meet before being considered. There may be other indices. However, the single entry here, Ben & Jerry's, is not an entity in its own right, it is owned by Unilever (which is a constituent of the FTSE4Good index.) Ephebi (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As companies can belong to dozens of indices, categorization by index is rare— we don't even have Category:FTSE 100 Index— and there's no compelling reason to choose this one over the others in, for example, Category:Ethical investment stock market indices (or others like the BITC CR Index for which we don't have articles yet). My point is that when companies like Halliburton, Nestle, EDF, Anglo-American Mining— and for that matter, Unilever— can be recognized as "socially responsible" by these third parties, the term has lost all meaning.- choster (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cynical? FTSE4Good & the DJSI indices have the benefit of meeting WP standards by being V and RS and have a methodology that's not are not POV. BTW, FTSE100 companies are listed, but not categorised, which I would think is appropriate for a fixed(-ish) list. Possibly a list is the best place for this, such as >here< Ephebi (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not clearly defined, per RevelationDirect. Note that some editors have said it has too many articles, and some that it has too few; normally that could be considered evidence that it's just right, but those who say it has too few also say it has some which absolutely, positively, do not belong. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 23:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Just how socially responsible does a company have to be to merit inclusion in the category? Who constructs the criteria and who monitors that? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 30 January 2012 (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. This appears to me to be an overly broad category that is grouping almost everything found at Meaning, which is a disambiguation page. Categories are not intended to function as disambiguation pages like this. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - First of all many categories got their start by containing the links from the disambiguation page. With that said, this category obviously contains other appropriate instances. This concept is a major area of study within philosophy, specifically philosophy of language, and that is the purpose here. Greg Bard (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Meaning (philosophy of language) to avoid confusion, and remove articles on meanings which mean something else. I can't myself think of any valid categories based on dab pages - any such should be brought forthwith to cfd for proper scrutiny. Oculi (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Split. A "rename" (per Lenticel) is confusing, as more than one category could reasonably be created. If there is any purpose (I was going to say "meaning", but that would be making a WP:POINT) to this disambiguation category, the individual articles should be distributed to the appropriate disambiguated categories, and the "main" category should be deleted. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 15:51, 27 January 2012 (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.
