Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 12 January 14 >

January 13[edit]

Category:Winners of What Car? Car of the Year[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another non-defining automobile award category. (Nominating these separately so each can be considered on its own merits) The award is so notable, that it doesn't have its own article (although it is at least mentioned in the main What Car? article), and most articles don't even mention it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:54, 13 January 2015 (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:Winners of World Car of the Year[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Slightly different to the other non-defining categories; not only is it non-defining, it's impossible to tell who actually awards this! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:53, 13 January 2015 (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:Winners of Wheels Car of the Year[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another non-defining automobile award category. (Nominating these separately so each can be considered on its own merits) The award is so notable, that it doesn't have its own article, and most articles don't even mention it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:51, 13 January 2015 (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:International Car of the Year Winners[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another non-defining automobile award category. The name makes it seem like it is some kind of major award... when it is actually just linked to Road & Travel Magazine. Which is hardly a major publication. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:49, 13 January 2015 (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:Winners of Automobile Magazine Automobile of the Year[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not seeing how this is a defining characteristic (this, or almost any of these "award winners"). Most of the time, the articles don't even mention this award anyway. Even the article linked to this category is massively incomplete. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as not defining. It would be listify but the list’s already there and is a much better way to record this or a similar minor award.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - not defining in the least. Too much awards talk already, self-serving magazine awards such as these ought to be denied.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Fine to mention or list in articles but it creates category clutter with minor awards.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- after listifying it (if necessary) as we always do with awards categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2015 (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:Drug user[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not an appropriate categorization of people. Skyerise (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (written as a reply to Carlossuarez46 below) The difference is that in most countries drug use is illegal. We can certainly list (with references), convictions for drug use. Otherwise, it is an accusation. Also, check the "criteria" at the top of the category page. Finally, it is completely immaterial to Wikipedia and its readers whether someone is alleged to have used drugs. Nearly every drug user for which the drug use is notable will either be in Category:Drug policy reform activists, Category:Psychedelic drug advocates, or categorized by conviction. The category is not only negative, it is redundant. It also could not be used on articles about living people at all without a conviction, and they will nonetheless be continually added to the category. It puts Wikipedia at legal risk. Skyerise (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see where it is part of why one is notable, Timothy Leary indeed is notable as a drug user (certainly more notable for that than being Category:United States Army soldiers or Category:University of Alabama alumni in which his biography is categorized. Are we saying that he (personal) drug experiences are sufficiently not "appropriate" that we'll keep categories of things that are not claims to notability but delete this one? Looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of us are drug users, if only minimally. Anybody who smokes (including tobacco), drinks (coffee, coca-cola) or takes a tablet for headache, influenza, high blood pressure. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this category is very poorly defined. "Drug" is such a general term, anyone that has at one point taken a pain-killer or medicine fits in this category, rendering it useless. Also, possibly problematic in BLP sensitive areas.--Atlan (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Far too vague, per Redrose64 and Atlan, and Category:Psychedelic drug advocates already covers people like Leary at al. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Extremely poorly defined. I'm taking paracetamol and ibuprofen for a leg issue right now; so I'd fit in this category. It also suggests that all people in it are still taking drugs (bad or good ones), which is equally unhelpful. Skyerise's nomination statement is pretty much spot on. Practically every single vaguely modern biography on this site would be eligible for this category... which is ridiculous. If someone is convicted for possession of or usage of drugs, then that's completely different, and that's a potentially valid cat. This though? Not even slightly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete drug activists are better grouped in the above stated categories by the nominator. This is also a category with extreme potential for mass misuse. SFB 23:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Activists belong in a spoecial category. For BLP, there is a defamation issue, unless convicted. For those convicted of illegal drug use, we might have a specific category/ies. However, unfotunately, the use of illegal drugs is far too common for this to be a useful category, quite apart from the issue of verification. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2015 (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:Films about 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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I just noticed that User:Hugo999 has been populating this preexisting category from 2011. The "films about countries" tree is expanding. As the creator of some of the documentary films about fooian geographical region, I suppose I bear some blame. To that, I believe a doc film "about" a country is especially useful for films that are about country x that are produced by country y -- as well as container categories for documentary films about a specific topic in a country, say, Category:Documentary films about the cinema of the United States. Anyway, that aside, we need to be very careful about whether a fictional film that is set in a given country can accurately be said to be "about" a country. In virtually all cases it is not, and we should default to the well-established "Films set in foo," I believe. (I'll be adding some subcats to this nom next -- treating the UK example as a test case for all Films about fooian country cats. Thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Any films specifically about the countries will sit in the documentary films category, which has a more clear name and scope than "films about [country]" which could easily be misconstrued. SFB 20:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete suffers from the usual "films about" subjectivities: how much about the subject must the film be and what reliable sources say it's at least that much?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support using documentary films about... instead Tim! (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I created the subcategories Category:Documentary films about England etc and this required the subcategories Category:Films about England etc to follow the category tree for the United Kingdom including Category:Films about the United Kingdom. However I agree that the "Films about" categories (UK only) can be deleted. Re documentary films, many will fall into two categories; eg a film on French wines (which may not be a French documentary) into categories films about France and films about wine. But the category Category:Documentary films about the United States is large enough to have subject subcategories. Hugo999 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- A film about England might be a documentary film about England (or some aspect of English life or politics) or a film about fictional events set in England. These are different thigns and should not be combined. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with above, eg Green Street is not a documentary, and is already in the category Films set in London (I m happy to move the four films involved). But how many categories should “Documentary films about Foo” be in? At present they are in one or more of Films set in Foo, Films shot in Foo and Works about Foo. As Films shot in Foo and Films set in Foo are often subcategories of Foo in fiction and/or Cinema of Foo, I think that documentaries about Foo should also be the subcategory Works about Foo. But should Documentaries about Foo also be in both the categories Films shot in Foo and Films set in Foo? (eg Canada, Japan have Works, Italy has Set & Works, DRC has Shot & Works) Hugo999 (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they should. Though I suppose it's possible that a documentary film about a country isn't actually shot in it, it's highly unlikely. And I can't see any way a doc film about a country can't be said to have that country as its setting. That's certainly the logic I've been following, when I added those parent categories (as I suspectr I did). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2015 (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:Long pop songs[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Deleteor Rename; Category as-is is very unclear; what constitutes a "long" pop song? Maybe keep as-is if the category description is made more clear. DonIago (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I created this category after it occurred to me that there are certain seminal pop songs that stand out because they go beyond the usual four minute length for pop songs. Such songs span genres and are highly notable in the history of pop music, so the existence of this category improves the encyclopedia. What such songs comprise is indicated by the songs I have added to this category. I had actually thought of naming this category "Seven minute long pop songs". But then I read the article Radio edit, which showed me that the length is actually between six and eight minutes. Hence, the vague term "long". I believe that article makes clear what "long" means in the category's title.
The intent of the creation of this category is to make the encyclopedia recognize that every once in a while, pop music bands make an ambitious effort to record an outstanding song that is around seven minutes long, as opposed to the norm for pop music of about four minutes. I think it is encyclopedic to have such a category. The category is unlikely to lead to junk being added to it, since if a "long song" is not noteworthy, it is unlikely to have its own article, and hence cannot be added to the category. Certainly other names for this category should be considered, but I thought that "Long pop songs" is Wikipedian in its simplicity and straightforwardness.
Is it possible to, within a category's entry, to explain what the category signifies? I believe it is, but I haven't looked into how to do that. So my proposal is to keep the name of the category as it is, but to explain what makes a pop song long, possibly referring to the Radio edit article. Please note that what I had in mind when creating this category was songs that were meant to be around seven minutes long in their original form, as opposed to in remixes. – Herzen (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to include explanatory text on a category's page, and that would definitely help address my concerns regarding the current lack of clarity. A random example - Category:Films featuring puppetry. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing that example. I have made a tentative addition of explanatory text with this edit. – Herzen (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a genuine phenomenon, but I expect it will be too slippery to define. I also think there will be far more potential entries in this category than you realise, and it could end up becoming a rather unwieldy and general list of songs. -- Walnuts go kapow (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only exceptional songs get their own articles, as opposed to being mentioned in the article about the album which they are a track in, so I am not sure that this category gives rise to an unwieldy list of songs. If a song has its own article and is significantly longer than four minutes, why not add it to this category? I doubt that that would add more than about a hundred songs to this category. Of course, I could be wrong, since my knowledge of pop music is very narrow, and is represented by the songs that I have added to this category. – Herzen (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete entirely arbitrary and subjective as there is no single definition of long, what's long in one circumstance may be unexceptional in another. The only time I recall coming across this is when the UK Guardian newspaper (music blog I think) had a weekly reader survey to compile a list, of (on one week) long pop songs. The criteria was over ten minutes, not four, six or eight.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per User:JohnBlackburne. Totally undefining --Richhoncho (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – as well as 'long' (arbitrary) there is 'pop'. I doubt whether Led Zeppelin consider their songs 'pop'. Oculi (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And on that point, it's not correctly categorized, I don't think. The {{Category:Pop music}} template has been applied, but surely it should be grouped under the more specific Category:Pop songs? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I initially put it under "Pop songs", but that forced the "Long pop songs" category to deprecate inclusion of particular songs, as opposed to categories, which is why I changed its parent category. – Herzen (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea what that means, but it's besides the point. Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Until such time as we have well-defined and agreed upon criteria for how long a long pop song needs to be, as we sort of do with Short film, we can't have this category. While Short film begins "No consensus exists as to where that boundary is drawn..." it then goes on, paradoxically, to draw some pretty clear boundaries. One of the practices we follow here is to ask that a main article exist, or could be created, before starting a category. Perhaps that's where attention could be focused in the event this Cfd passes... in writing a referenced main article? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:JohnBlackburne. The category is subjective and unclear. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the description I added to the category clarifies it. There's nothing subjective here. Length of song is at least six minutes (significantly greater than the four minute airplay limit), and the song has an article about it. – Herzen (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. Radio edit does state "The normal length for songs played on the radio is 3 to 4 minutes." I'm still not convinced we should categorize over and under, on that basis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/potential listify? This concept is subjective and is not suitable for the category area. However, there is a content gap here in that we could easily have an article on song length, covering such long pop releases, as well as the ideas found at Radio edit and Three-minute pop song (the latter could probably be merged to the main article). SFB 20:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unclear whether it's only for the A-sides of singles, or any singles tracks, or if album tracks are allowed too. But whichever it is, it doesn't currently include All Around the World (Oasis song) which AFAIK is the longest A-side of them all. O Superman isn't in there, either. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It now includes "All around the World", which I didn't know about. It's that easy. My idea about this category is that this is about the original mix and release. Several of the entries I included in this category are album tracks. Whether the song is on an A-side or a B-side or an album doesn't matter. If you think that how the category describes itself is imprecise, you can modify that description. – Herzen (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added O Superman. – Herzen (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I am surprised by the virtually unanimously hostile reception this category has received. Many editors say that the category is "subjective", but that view is philosophically naive, as far as I can tell. There is a definite family resemblance between the songs I have added to this category. They are all significantly longer than four minutes, and all widely considered to be "classics" and masterpieces.
But as I indicated, this is just a working title. I just did a Google search and came up with this blog post: Top Ten Songs Over 7 Minutes Long (Classic Rock edition). Note that this blogger chooses greater than 7 minutes as his criterion. That was also my original idea, as I said above. So if people think that "long pop songs" is too vague, then the category could be called "pop songs over seven minutes long" or "pop songs longer than seven minutes". One could make that "classic/notable/influential pop songs over seven minutes", but I guess that wouldn't fly, because those terms are subjective. So one can have as the defining quality being over seven minutes long. (That would eliminate one or two songs I placed in the current category, since they are between 6 and 7 minutes long.)
I hope that this is a satisfactory response to the objections that have been made. As I said, when one looks at the history of pop music, long pop songs (songs over 7 minutes long, to be precise) stand out as a class of their own, so Wikipedia should recognize that by having a corresponding category. I believe that there is little danger of this category becoming swamped with songs, since a song has to be exceptional to get its own article. – Herzen (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Firstly these are not all pop songs. As noted above "long" does not define them. As to "over 7 minutes" this is an arbitrary figure. Why not 6 or 8 or 10. Some songs just happen to be long and that's all.--Egghead06 (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What pop music is is Western music with classical and jazz excluded. The 7 minutes length is not arbitrary. It occurs to anyone with a modicum of familiarity with pop music. What we are running into here is the problem with the Wikipedia basic rules. Not only don't editors need to be recognized experts in their field. They can also be culturally illiterate.
I don't see how anyone with a modicum of familiarity with pop music can be against Wikipedia gathering seminal pop songs of a greater length than standard airplay length into their own category. – Herzen (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is arbitrary and subjective. First the number (or numbers if it's changed) is just plucked from your head. Second Stairway to Heaven a pop song? Not according to its article. i.e. both the time and whether to include a song longer than that time is subjective. Finally many songs do not have fixed lengths anyway. Blue Monday (New Order song) is listed with various lengths on that page, from 4 to over 8 minutes, and that's before you get to covers. This is quite normal and has been for decades; single and album version, 7" and 12" often differ primarily in length, so there's no fixed length for any song.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Long" is so very vague and non-defining. "Pop" is far too vague as well. Herzen, don't try throwing around ad hominems about other users just because consensus is against you. "Modicum of familiarity" - no, the 7 minute thing is something you made up. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make up the 7 minute thing. The Beatles made it up with Hey Jude, creating a challenge for subsequent bands. – Herzen (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Herzen: I think people are being a bit obtuse to you here by not explaining the key issue. Categories are great for grouping content which has something in common that is not (very) subjective, e.g. Category:Roads in London, Category:Cats. They are not great for gathering more subjective material. The topic of "long pop songs" needs more elaboration than a barebones category allows: the material is much more suited to an article or gathered in a list (as I suggested above) where we can give context of the songs and a history of recorded song lengths. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates for a comparison of the pros and cons of the methods of presenting content. SFB 18:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although, @Sillyfolkboy:, it doesn't exactly help Herzen's case that they respond with a comment like the one above. That is a blatant violation of WP:Original research, and is clearly just a "I like this as a basis, so I'm going to roll with it" type of thing. I do agree with the article/list versus cat comment though. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also really like how you manage to work in that the rest of us are obtuse. There's not enough of that sort of thing at this Afd. ;-) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I was feeling left out. :p DonIago (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: I looked at the Wikipedia policy page you linked to and I didn't see anything that indicates that "Long pop songs" is a bad category. I don't see anything subjective about this category at all. "Pop songs" is a well established category. I think that everyone who is culturally literate in a Western society knows that pop songs are generally about four minutes long. I explained this in the category description. So what "long" means is significantly longer than four minutes. To me, that means longer than five minutes. The reason I don't think that greater than seven minutes should be the requirement is that there are some songs just under seven minutes which I believe belong in this category.
Of course I am being subjective in that I am only adding songs by bands I am familiar with and like. But anybody can add songs to this category by bands that I have never heard of. As for bands releasing songs in varying lengths, I think it is pretty clear that there is usually a "canonical" version of a song. Thus both Hey Jude and Blue Monday were originally released in a greater length than seven minutes.
Even though I really like pop music, I don't care if this category gets deleted. But I honestly think it has clear and substantial encyclopedic merits. Having this category would help Wikipedia readers explore pop music. – Herzen (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop with this "culturally literate" nonsense, since it is both arrogant and an inaccurate statement. I can see quite a lot of songs in my own music library that are both pop songs and longer than four minutes. Your seven minute number is just something you picked based on a pure personal opinion, not a subjective encyclopaedic reason. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Herzen: If you truly think the definition of what constitutes a "long pop song" is not very subjective, then I can only refer to the various opinions above (which I broadly agree with). It's the sheer number of borderline cases you would get that makes it unworkable: 5-6:00 mins? 6:30 mins? 6:50 mins? 7:00 mins? There is no universal tipping point to the definition "long", or even a majority agreeable one. SFB 18:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- whether song is long is a POV issue. In the days of shellac discs and then vinyl singles, a song too long to go on one side of a disc might be considered "long", but now therse are obsolescent, the eis no obvious test. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2015 (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:AR platform[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:AR-platform firearms. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At a minimum this category should be renamed to something more meaningful (Category:Firearms using the AR platform ?), but it would be better to delete/listify this and create Category:ArmaLite firearms that can fit under Category:Firearms by manufacturer. DexDor (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Firearms have been notified. DexDor (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "AR platform" means AR-15 and AR-10 type rifles made by any manufacturer, e.g. Heckler & Koch HK416, and is a useful category. It should probably be renamed to make that more clear. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The HK416 may be "based on the AR-15 platform", but we don't usually categorize things (e.g. vehicles, aircraft) by what they are based on - it's too imprecise/subjective/unclear to work as a general categorization scheme. Which aspects of a particular firearm were derived from other firearms can (of course) be explained in the article text. DexDor (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly be okay with a category of "airplanes based on the 747 airframe". The parts between AR-platform rifles are often so interchangeable (in many cases identical) that people can mix and match them, and often do. I feel that it is therefore perfectly reasonable to group them together. Do you own/have much experience with AR-platform rifles? Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have something for Category:AK-platform firearms ? It would seem logical for that to exist if this does. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; it certainly wouldn't hurt to create it. It would cover everything from the AKM to the PSL to the RPK. Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the parallel category is category:Kalashnikov derivatives. I suppose "AR derivatives" woould work, but it'd be better to have something about "firearms" in the name.
To DexDor, it's a bit like grouping "V6 cars" or "electric vehicles". The AR platform is a set of technologies first developed in the late 1950s. The main patents have expired. Various companies and designers have both copied the original rifles and created notable variations. It definitely makes sense to associate them through a category instead of a list or template. Rezin (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Template:AR-10 derivatives, but I'd rather see that deleted than this category. It's an indistinct group. I think templates are better suited to groups with a known list of members. Rezin (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename – I don't know to what but the current name is ambiguous and unclear, as AR could be many things while 'platform' has many meanings.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. "AR platform" is reasonably clear within the context of firearms, but that context is currently missing. I'd suggest "AR-platform firearms" as a better alternative. "AR-type firearms" is a less precise alternative because many articles discuss rifles based on AR-10 or AR-15 actions but with significant differences. That said, "AR-type" might be misleading but probably still be acceptable. Rezin (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt rename' to "AR-type firearms" per Rezin's suggestions. This is a far more intuitive naming and the added context actually helped me realise that I knew what an "AR platform" was in the first place! SFB 20:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I believe this adds clarity. Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No need to rename as it is a subcategory of Category:Rifles. If it is renamed, it should be AR-platform rifles - but that would be redundant. Lightbreather (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how categories work though. Two of the general conventions cover this. First 'Avoid abbreviations' unless they are generally understood which AR certainly is not. Second and most importantly 'Choose category names that can stand alone'. Readers should not have to look at the category and see how it is categorised to deduce what the category is.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Avoid abbreviations" says they should be used if they have become the official or generally used name where there are no other conflicts. "AR platform" has become the generally used name.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
You are right about the "stand alone" thing though, so !Yes to "AR-platform rifles" (just as there are currently "Anti-tank rifles," "Bolt-action rifles," "Semi-automatic rifles," and so on). Lightbreather (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret 'generally used' as meaning most people would understand the abbreviation. Like NATO, USA, PRC, CNN. But 'AR' or 'AR platform' isn't generally understood to mean anything. There isn't a WP page for the platform, the DAB page doesn't list it. Something like "AR-platform rifles", or "AR-platform firearms" if "rifles" is too narrow, makes much more sense.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; There are plenty of AR-Platform pistols as well. Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Faceless Enemy: It looks like you already voted on January 13.
@Lightbreather: I meant "Oppose" to your proposed name change to "AR-platform rifles," as AR-platform pistols exist. I apologize for the lack of clarity; as I recall I was editing on my phone and I must have mis-typed. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2015 (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:History of Arizona 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: Already deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Malformed stub category. No template. All articles directly added to category. Propose deleting category, removing all direct category additions. Dawynn (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't have History of ... stub cats for other U.S. states; underpopulated, no template. Would not be created if proposed at WP:WSS/P. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_13&oldid=1074814720"