< March 12	March 14 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:The Carpenters albums, convention of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with Merge-ing it into the above category. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge - The division is not needed. This is at least the third Carpenters-related category to be brought up on WP:CFD. Someone appears to be creating a lot of Carpenters-related cruft. Dr. Submillimeter 07:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge - Category:The Carpenters albums is not big enough to justify division. Also, all compilation albums are currently in both categories. --Rimshots 09:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge There's no reason for a category quite this specific. Placement in both The Carpenters albums and Compilation albums will suffice. GassyGuy 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unused, and vague image cat, superseded by the commons, delete. Peta 22:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete in favour of commons. Haddiscoe 01:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete yes, belongs on commons. Not here. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basically an unused image category, superseded by the commons, delete. Peta 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as previous nom. Belongs on commons. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empty (except for image galleries in the article space that should be on the commons), superseded by the commons. Delete Peta 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as last two noms. Belongs on commons. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empty and superseded by the commons. Delete Peta 22:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as last three noms. Belongs on commons. Alex43223^{T | C | E} 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - the category is being used in part as an improper performer by performance categorization, capturing films based on actors who appear in them. Inclusion of people and projects is based on an arbitrary standard. While there are reliable sources attesting to a number of actors who were originally designated as the "Frat Pack" in the interim a non-reliable "Frat Pack tribute" website has designated various other performers as members of the Pack. The tribute site's definition also requires a minimum of two "Frat Pack" members per project to qualify (also arbitrary) and that the project be comedic in nature (again, arbitrary and POV). For all these issues the category should be deleted. Otto4711 19:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 01:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom for improper and arbitrary categorisation. --Xdamr^talk 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep. Vegaswikian 20:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a dispute about naming these categories that one user has created. Another user has repeatedly attempted to delete them with an invalid ((db-self)) tag. Also, Category:Serbian language films has already been speedied as a db-self even though the original author was not the one that tagged it (and the original author disputed deletion). I have no preference for which should be deleted, but just want the edit-warring parties have an appropriate page to discuss it. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, looking at Serbo-croatian and Croatian language articles it appears that both are correct. However, it seems to be the case that since the breakup of Yugoslavia, usage of the term Croatian language, Serbian language and Bosnian language (etc) are becoming more common. I think we should keep Category:Croatian language films as a subcat of Category:Serbo-Croatian-language films for the time being. I would support the undeletion of Category:Serbian language films (renamed to Serbian-language films). Malla nox 01:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is already as a subcategory, but besides in this case, the category was not well created, that's all, he forgot to put a dash

Ok, does this mean all of the accusations that people were creating film language categories for political purposes is at an end? Malla nox 23:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accusations?

Keep They are now generally accepted as being separate languages. Abberley2 01:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category only contains the one article, and will highly unlikely only ever have the one article, unless there is some notable pen spinner, or a pen spinning championship, or some form of spinning pens. Montchav 18:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Rimshots 17:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolindigo 18:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. --Xdamr^talk 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Listify and then Delete - There was consensus to delete, but since the list exists, merging the two before the deletion makes sense, and follows the secondary consensus of listify. - jc37 11:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. While we are at it, we might as well do this one as well, just like Category:Forbes 400, Category:Fortune 1000, and Category:Fortune 500. It is the property of Standard and Poors, who set an arbitrary cutoff at 500 companies. UnitedStatesian 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Keep~~Neutral - Unlike the Fortune lists, the S&P 500 companies are used to calculate the S&P 500, which is a widely-used index of stock market value. Theoretically, these comapnies reflect the health of the stock markets. Keeping this category and other categories for companies used in stock market indices is very valuable. It is not comperable to the Forbes or Fortune lists, which are just lists of the top N companies or people in terms of net worth. Moreover, the list of S&P 500 companies and other companies in indices remain relatively stable over time (the lists are not changed yearly), whereas the Forbes and Fortune lists change from year to year. Dr. Submillimeter 18:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment While I understand the differences between the Stock Market indices and the pure ranking lists, I am not sure why that makes the S&P category inherently more valuable - can you expand/clarify?. The S&P 500 list is not much more stable than the Fortune list: in 2005 there were 21 changes in the S&P 500 (meaning the S&P 500 makes a change on average every 2 weeks), and only 31 changes in the Fortune 500. (and I am not sure why that matters - If your concern is on ease of maintainance, I would rather make the changes in one fell swoop once a year than have to worry about continual maintainance) And, of course, we still have the Intellectual Property problem: the S&P 500 list belongs to S&P, and WP's use of it violates their copyright. UnitedStatesian 18:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Comment - I did not realize that the S&P 500 was as unstable as you stated. My statement was based more on what I know about the Dow Jones. I have struck out my comments and changed my vote to neutral. The S&P 500 is still more useful than just a list of the richest companies, but the instability issues may make it difficult to maintain. Dr. Submillimeter 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep -- ~~or else delete the category but keep List~~ I agree with Dr. Submillimeter. The widespread use of this list as an index of the value of the stock market and as the basis for various mutual-fund portfolios makes the list an item of encyclopedic value. However, I'm not sure that the category is necessary, given the existence of the article List of S&P 500 companies. Unlike the category, the article can provide information on changes over time in the membership of the S&P 500. --orlady 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Edited. Some comments below have convinced me that the category has value in addition to the list. --orlady 18:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep It is a defining category for a company. ~~In fact, it is a defining category for WP:CORP.~~It was once a defining characteristic for WP:CORP TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as a copyright violation. Haddiscoe 01:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I believe that this is not a copyright violation. Lists like the Forbes 500 and Rolling Stones top 50 albums, etc are copyrighted because the companies use them to sell magazines and publishing the list in Wikipedia could damage the publisher in that sales could be impacted by publishing the list on Wikipedia. No such relationship exists for the S&P 500. If you have other reasons to vote delete, so be it, but I believe that the copyright infrigement is a red herring in this case. If you believe otherwise, I suggest that you take this to WP:COPYVIO. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Not really. Copyright is automatic on any authored text, not something you request because you use your text to sell magazines. There have been court cases over this. Delete for copyright concerns, failing that listify because a list would be more comprehensive (e.g. it lists the order and the year). >Radiant< 10:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep It seems like a useful indicator of corporate notability when viewing an article about a company. I disagree that the category would be a copyright violation, especially since such concerns have not been raised on the List of S&P 500 companies article. -- Bovineone 08:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as a copyright violation. The idea that it isn't one because no one happens to have gotten round to making that point about the list is spurious. Wimstead 12:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This is a tricky one. First, if it's a copyright violation, it should be delete, period. But assuming there isn't a copyright problem, I can definitely see how the S&P 500 index is of particularly important value for readers studying the market and economy. It's one of the central data points, so knowing the companies actually on the list is important. However, all that necessarily means is it is probably a good list article or a good list for WikiSource. There's also the problem that the S&P 500 index changes frequently, which runs into the general rule against categories which require maintainence for "current/former" status of its members. Therefore my gut feeling would be to delete this and use a list on WikiSource instead, since the central purpose of the category is presumably to present a freely available data set of companies for researchers. Dugwiki 16:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Does this also apply to Category:Dow Jones Industrial Average, Category:CAC 40, and Category:IBEX-35? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does anyone actually have any reliable sources that establish that the list is proprietary, or even that S&P claims it is? I can't imagine that this would never have come up, considering the interest that many different parties would have (investment brokers, media outlets, etc.) in republishing it, and how would anyone be able to use such an index if you can't copy it? Let's stop the armchair lawyering for now and get some evidence, which shouldn't be lacking if the copyright concern is actually a valid one. Postdlf 17:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Listify, do we have a Dow-Jones index category? FT100? Nikkei Index? Hang Sang? Strait Times index? 70.55.91.139 06:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep Membership of the S&P 500 is important information for investors. It indicates that the company is likely to be more closely researched by analysts, and the research is more likely to be easily available. It also indicates a level of liquidity for the company shares, and that blocks of the shares are likely to be held by index-tracking funds. A category ref is the simplest way to note this information in a Wikipedia article; and also to make sure that relevant WP articles do contain it. Category should therefore be kept, as should other stock market index membership categories. Jheald 13:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Lists of facts are not protected by U.S. copyright law. See Feist Supreme Court judgement. ~~If the S&P 500 has an objective criterion for inclusion then there is no copyvio.~~ Strictly speaking Feist does not apply here, however on all four of the factors to take into account there is an overwhelming case that the S&P 500 category listing would qualify as fair use. Note in particular the public significance of the information; and the fact that the listing here is in no way harmful to S&P's business exploitation of the index - in fact inclusion here serves (ever so slightly) to promote the index and the company. Jheald 13:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete -- this is a bit painful to write, since I spent several hours updating the category just two weeks ago to reflect changes in the S&P 500. I also updated the List of S&P 500 companies article. I do not think the list article and the category violate copyrights for multiple reasons (fair use, Jheald's comment above, the list's appearance in so many other places, etc.) and I think either contains valuable information. The S&P 500 is different from other lists such as the Fortune 500 since it is used for the most important stock index in the U.S. markets and it may arguably be the most important index in the world. Having said all this, I think the category should be deleted since it's much easier to maintain the list article than the category -- you just download the current list in Excel format from S&P and process it in a text editor. If editors want to identify a particular company as a member of the S&P 500, they can note that in the company's article or include a link to the list in the article's "See also" section. It's a waste of time to maintain both the list article and the category. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep Deletion of Forbes 400, Fortune 1000 and Fortune 500 was done out of a total misunderstanding of copyright law. See comments by Jheald above. Lists of companies are NOT copyrightable, as basic data is NOT copyrightable and the only characteristic in this list is basic financial data. Furthermore, the arbitrary 500 cutoff isn't copyrightable either, and if it were, then anyone publishing a list of 500 companies based on the same financial data that Fortune used could be sued by them. MANY places reproduce these categories, including CNN, USAToday, etc. etc. This category should be left alone and the other three that were wrongly deleted should be immediately reinstated. TheQuandry 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete in favour of the article, which is likely to be more reliable. Abberley2 01:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Canadian actors by province or territory

Category:Alberta actors

Category:British Columbia actors

Category:Manitoba actors

Category:Nova Scotia actors

Category:Ontario actors

Category:Quebec actors

Delete per overcategorization guideline regarding "Intersection by location." The two people who created all but one of these categories agree that they can be deleted. (See here and here. I haven't heard back from the third person, who no longer seems to be active.)--Vbd (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that these categories should be upmerged (then deleted).--Vbd (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Refinement by province or U.S. state seems excessive. Moreover, most actors end up being listed both in Category:Canadian actors as well, so these extra categories lead to category clutter. Dr. Submillimeter 17:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Canadian actors. Since consensus is likely to be delete, upmerge to let the bots make sure that everyone is included in Category:Canadian actors. Vegaswikian 05:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upmerge. Far too many large categories are being broken up into less useful subcategories. Just because we can diffuse large categories into smaller ones does not mean we must diffuse large categories. Some, like 'Canadian actors' are just fine left large. Template:Catdiffuse is being overused, and was recently badly reworded in a way that changed its meaning. -- SamuelWantman 11:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment - These "actor by province" categories are not used to diffuse articles from Category:Canadian actors. Instead, articles usually get listed in both the main category and one or more province subcategories. Dr. Submillimeter 12:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - The CatDiffuse template is on the parent category, and it says that the articles should be diffused. -- Samuel Wantman 08:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upmerge per Vegaswikian. Otto4711 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Upmerge, I doubt the acting careers of any of the included individuals are actually tied to these particular provinces in a meaningful way (and if they were that localized their notability would be in question). All these trivially amount to is "people who lived in a particular Canadian province at some time in their lives and who at any time became actors anywhere in the world..." Calling someone like Donald Sutherland a "Nova Scotia actor" is just plain silly, because of the relationship it falsely suggests between his career and Nova Scotia. Postdlf 16:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- That being said, there's nothing wrong with organizing entries in a List of people associated with Nova Scotia by what career they are known for; such lists can be organized in multiple ways such as by birthdate, alphabetical, accomplishment, type of association with the locality (born there, lived there, worked there, died there, etc.). I think we'd be better off listifying most, if not all, subnational people categories; see List of people associated with Columbus, Ohio for a rough start of mine. "People from X" has always been too vague for my taste, and is almost always trivial clutter. Are you "from" somewhere if you were born there but then moved as an infant, if you just went to school there, if you lived in a suburb of it...? Postdlf 17:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - while I agree these may not be the best cats, I might argue that since we already have Category:People by Canadian province or territory and occupation, while not just keep going. Kevlar67 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There's no reason to treat the existence of that parent category as an all or nothing proposition. Some occupations may make sense to link with provincial residence or origin; acting is not one of them. It's really something to judge case-by-case. Postdlf 20:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upmerge per nom and per above. Very few of these people are notable for being a 'provincial' actor, as such it is not the best basis for categorisation. --Xdamr^talk 19:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Independent cinemas in the UK to Category:Cinema of the United Kingdom

Merge, this category is not being used just for actual cinemas. It is incomplete, and if taken as being for "independent cinema", that is hard to define. Ravenhurst 17:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment This category lists places where films are shown. I can't see any counter-examples ? Jheald 09:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Merge The category is either overcat (referring to the brick-and-mortar cinemas, and/or incomplete (referring to the industry). Alex43223^{T | C | E} 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge per Alex43223. Wimstead 12:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Different Merge. Category:Cinema of the United Kingdom is completely inappropriate. These are places where films are shown, not general articles about the art and industry of film in the UK. Instead, recategorise under Category:Cinemas in the United Kingdom. Jheald 09:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Original merge These articles are not all about buildings, and Category:Cinemas in the United Kingdom is a subcategory of Category:Cinema of the United Kingdom. Mowsbury 11:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- So which one of these articles are you claiming is not being included as a place that films can be seen? Jheald 12:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support original merge "Independent" is a much misused term in business. Abberley2 01:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Air Force airmen to Category:United States Air Force Airmen

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Per USAF Chief of Staff policy on "Airman" capitalization.[1] — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose per wikipedia conventions. Ravenhurst 17:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I would vote to capitalize if this was for an educational institution's nickname/mascot, but here it is not. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose I think general Wikipedia capitalisation conventions should be followed here, rather than the practice of the USAF CoS in making a point.

Xdamr^talk 12:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:University and college dormitories to Category:University and college residential buildings. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University and college dormitories to Category:University and college dormitories and halls of residence

Nominator's Rationale: Rename. The present name shows a pro-American bias in the selection of terminology. An alternative way to resolve this would be to rename the category to Category:University and college residential buildings, while continuing to use local terms for the national subcategories. Ravenhurst 17:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Category:University and college residential buildings is shorter and more generic so on the surface that would appear the better choice. Vegaswikian 19:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename to Category:University and college residential buildings. That is reasonably short, and better than trying to cover all variants (based on the contents of the category, for one thing it may be that another term is necessary to incorporate Australian usage). Wimstead 12:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to Category:University and college residential buildings. I'm sympathetic to the first suggestion, but there is reason to suppose that that is also not all-inclusive. That being the case, 'Residential buildings' seems appropriately general.

Xdamr^talk 12:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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 delete (empty).--Mike Selinker 07:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Josh Abraham albums to Category:Albums produced by Josh Abraham

Merge, Target category exists and contains a lot of articles; source category is empty. Rimshots 16:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Per the comments in the discussion, the project would not be impacted since the articles that still refrence the disctionaly are still listed in Special:Whatlinkshere/Dictionary of Australian Biography. Vegaswikian 21:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following up on two recent nominations, this is another cluttersome category by source that links people with little in common and impedes access to more useful categories. CalJW 15:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Presumably could include just about all of the more established names in Category:Australian people. Thus it is pointless. Ravenhurst 17:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, there is a rather active project migrating the PD text from this work into wikipedia, and this category is useful for that project. Would support deletion when the project is finished, but not yet. --Peta 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I don't see why this is necessary for the project. But in any case, I don't think migrating a lot of out of date text into Wikipedia is a good idea, so anything that encourages it is unwelcome. There are some pretty unsuitable imported articles from 1911 Britannica etc, but the fact that such detailed articles exist probably discourages people from building up a good article from scratch. Haddiscoe 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on Peta's comments, this seems to be intended as "Unedited articles copied from the Dictionary of Australian Biography," which should then be removed once they are edited; at present, however, it is used for any article that merely references the Dictionary, which suggests permanence. I'd support changing it to an appropriately named maintenance category out of which articles can eventually be migrated, but not keeping as is. Postdlf 23:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This is not the best way for the project to keep records. It would be better served by a wikilinked list of articles, as that would highlight the articles which have not been created, rather than those that have been created. Honbicot 12:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - This is categorization by published list, a form of overcategorization. We also recently deleted Category:Forbes 400. These lists also contain an arbitrary inclusion limit (another form of overcategorization), and they verge on copyright infringement. Dr. Submillimeter 15:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete As above, similar reasoning to the deletion of the Forbes 400. Dugwiki 15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Unless Wikipedia has bought a share of the rights to the Fortune 1000, this category is illegal. Ravenhurst 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment I think it makes sense to clarify that a copyright violation, while wrong, is not "illegal" as the term is generally used, and that most copyright violators would be subject to civil, not criminal, penalty. UnitedStatesian 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Defining characteristic of a company though less important than Fortune 500. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Haddiscoe 01:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 12:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Being one of the 1000 largest companies by turnover in the United States is a defining characteristic; and widely recognised as such -- viz the number of hits in general publications for "Fortune 1000 company". And not a copyvio, per Feist -- see discussion under Fortune 500 below. Jheald 12:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete due to copyright concerns. Dominictimms 21:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete in line with many recent deletions of categories for honours that are given to people who are notable for entirely different things, are essentially unconnected to one another, and have many categories already. CalJW 15:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - We have already decided to delete categories for minor honors given by cities. This one is no different. Dr. Submillimeter 15:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conditional delete: This should be an article rather than a category. Then it should be deleted. Jhamez84 23:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 11:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Cat. is an incomplete redundant cat. with Category:Fortune 1000 (which is complete). Since the 500 is a subset of the 1000, all of the co. articles that are in the 500 would have both categories: an overcategorization. UnitedStatesian 14:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Changed to keep Changing nomination based on the suggestion to subcat from user TheQuandry below: this is a better solution. (and thus Category:Fortune 1000 would be for companies in 501-1000: in the 1000 but not in the 500, fixing the overcategorization). UnitedStatesian 18:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - This is categorization by published list, a form of overcategorization. We also recently deleted Category:Forbes 400. These lists also contain an arbitrary inclusion limit (another form of overcategorization), and they verge on copyright infringement. Dr. Submillimeter 15:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete both as copyright violations. CalJW 15:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete As above, similar reasoning to the Forbes 400 list. Dugwiki 15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Unless Wikipedia has bought a share of the rights to the Forbes 400, this category is illegal. Ravenhurst 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment I think it makes sense to clarify that a copyright violation, while wrong, is not "illegal" as the term is generally used, and that most copyright violators would be subject to civil, not criminal, penalty. UnitedStatesian 17:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Illegal? Copyvio? How is providing a list of Fortune 500 companies (or Fortune 1000 for that matter) copyvio? TheQuandry 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment It is based on the recent Supreme Court Decision Feist v. Rural, aka the phonebook case. The choice of which companies to include, possibly the ordering of those companies (Category:Fortune 1000 uses piped links to exactly duplicate Fortune's unique alphabetizing scheme), and their choice in assigning rank to each company is as "expressive" per the discussion in Implications. Also, under Relation with treaties it states, "The standard for such originality is fairly low; for example, business listings have been found to meet this standard when deciding which companies should be listed and categorizing those companies required some kind of expert judgement." See the discussion at Talk:Fortune 1000 (from which the above is taken). UnitedStatesian 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Comment Consensus at that page is that this is not a copyvio. As M@rēino writes: "I am a lawyer, and lists like this are exactly what Feist makes public domain". That would be my reading too. Jheald 12:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Defining characteristic of company should be kept especially if Fortune 1000 deleted. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, worth mentioning in the article, but not a useful category. Potential copyright isuues as mentioned. --Peta 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Copyvio, and arbitary non-defining characteristic. Haddiscoe 01:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 12:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Not a copyvio, per Feist; and the information that a company is one of the 500 largest U.S. companies by turnover most definitely is a defining characteristic. Also note for example the number of software companies bragging in their advertisements about how many of the Fortune 500 run their platforms. Subcat under Category:Fortune_1000
Comment I'm pretty sure that an alphabetical list of 500 companies that fulfill a specific economic requirement isn't copyrightable. If we had scanned the list from Fortune magazine or copied and pasted it right from their website than sure, but this is too general. For example, basic data is not copyrightable either, at least in terms of printed book. You can take data compiled by someone and use it to construct a graph or a table and it helps your verifiability to state where the basic data came from, but if you use general data from, say, The American Medical Association, they can't come along and sue you for copyright infringement. Discussion at Fortune 1000 seems to indicate also that these aren't copyvios. TheQuandry 21:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:JewishEncyclopedia. It appears from this and other CFD debates I have come across recently that there is consensus that we shall not categorise articles by source. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following the early support for my recent nomination of another of these category-clutter creating by-source articles, here is another one. This is not a selective nomination - if the current nominations are successful I intend to put all such categories for deletion as I come across them. CalJW 14:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Most of the categorization is added through Template:JewishEncyclopedia, a change to which would depopulate this category quite quickly. --Rimshots 16:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, because a message on the article should be enough to find out the source. --Rimshots 16:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Too broad-ranging to be of much use. Ravenhurst 17:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, useful for tracking PD sources, tracking migration progress and for verification. None of these "source" noms mention that the category is built into the template. --Peta 22:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Bulk importation of PD material should be discouraged as it builds in out of date material. Haddiscoe 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this category; keep Template:JewishEncyclopedia and optionally move that template to article talk pages instead. — coel acan — 03:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this and all similar "categories" as well. Pavel Vozenilek 12:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this category; keep Template:JewishEncyclopedia per Coelacan. Make sure that articles derived from the JE can then be tracked by using "what links here" for the template. Jheald 13:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep per Dfass below Jheald 07:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep; I think that all the work that has gone into putting the old JE into WP should be kept; also consider that even though the material may be out of date, it also preserves information that is now lost due to both World Wars; esp. about manuscripts, history, and genealogy. This info is hard to recapture; admittedly it is available on sites like Jewishencyclopedia.com; but that is not the easiest site to navigate and has OCR errors. my 2 cents.--FeanorStar7 23:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- You seem to be totally misunderstanding the issue. None of the articles are up for deletion. Craig.Scott 02:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep; I frankly do not see the compelling reason to remove this automatically-generated category. The "Jewish Encyclopedia" articles are very much related to one another and cohere as a category, since they all derive from the same classic Jewish reference source and are all written by the same set of very prestigious authors (Schechter, Bacher, Lauterbach, etc.). Having an "auto-category" for the JE articles makes it possible to view a complete table of contents for the "Wikipediized" JE. While I understand that arguments can be made for deleting some categories in pursuit of neatness or comprehensibility, the "Jewish Encyclopedia" category seems like a very poor candidate for such deletion. ——— With regard to the JE material being outdated (which is not really the topic of this discussion, but bears a response), this is true in only a limited number of instances, and these can (and will) be updated in due time. For example, in the few JE articles on Midrash that I have checked against the standard modern reference (Strack & Stemberger 1991), very few updates were required, and the information provided by the JE in general FAR EXCEEDS what is available from any other public domain source. There are many strong reasons to have this material in Wikipedia; too many to list here. In no negative sense were these articles imported "in bulk". They were each individually formatted, Wikipediized, categorized, and supplemented with unicode searchable Hebrew text; I dare say they are among the very best articles on Jewish life, history, and culture available on the internet, and are certainly a credit to Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfass (talk • contribs)
Delete Category clutter. Encourages use of obselete sources. Craig.Scott 02:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, articles should not be categorized by what references were used to write them. This is a self-reference to the article and to Wikipedia processes, rather than an intrinsic feature of the article's subject. If, as Peta argues, this is instead being used as a maintenance category to target articles that were dumped from that source and need updating and cleanup, then it should be renamed to reflect that so that the category is removed once that task is complete—"Wikipedia articles that need to be updated from Jewish Encyclopedia articles" or something like that. Dfass, however, seems to undermine even that maintenance need, by disputing that much updating or cleanup is even necessary. Postdlf 03:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question: Where are the guidelines for category selection? Are there any? Since Wikipedia categories are more "tags" than "taxonomy", my own view would be that any "category tag" which might prove useful to the reader in a real sense is a valid category tag. The notion that we should only choose categories which fit neatly into some imagined grand ontology is philosophically appealing, but not currently useful. There is no grand ontology, and so the only criterion we have at the moment is usefulness to readers, as I see it. On that measure, I think "Jewish Encyclopedia articles" is a useful category. Do you feel that is not the case? If the Wiki-Ont people ever introduce an ontology into Wikipedia, the whole situation may change, but that seems far off... —Dfass 15:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per Postdlf. Honbicot 12:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 22:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Sort of an out of date duplicate of category:Jews and Judaism, and as useless as that category would be if it was not broken down into sharper divisions. Dominictimms 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep - The template was placed on the user's page by User:Jayjg, who is an arbitrator, and who, according to Special:Listusers, has checkuser ability. If User:Ivan Kricancic has any further questions or concerns, I suggest that he ask User:Jayjg for any further information. - jc37 10:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, As seen here, the admin that Emir Arven contacted regarding these alleged sockpuppets does not believe his claims. There has been no case or investigation regarding Emir Arven's false claims. A checkuser was requested, but failed. This bad faith category must be deleted. —KingIvan 12:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Nathanian 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Obviously needed for user's sockpuppets. Khoi khoi 05:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course it would be needed if there were sockpuppets, but the proven fact is, those that were in the category were in fact not sockpuppets. —KingIvan 06:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been made clear through IP evidence. Khoi khoi 15:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where has it been made clear? —KingIvan 07:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here. Khoi khoi 02:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone could have added that there. Please show me the checkuser case that "confirmed" it. If no checkuser exists that "proves" it, then it means that no checkuser has "confirmed" anything, thus the tag is unjustified. —KingIvan 09:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. It has been proven before. Also, the RFCU was not conducted only because of Wikimedia privacy policy regarding IP addresses of current users. Nishkid 64 04:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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. Yes, it's a defined genre, which is why we have an article on the topic, but it's not possible to objectively pigeonhole all scifi stories as "hard" or "not hard", hence it is not useful categorization. >Radiant< 14:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - According to hard science fiction, this category includes "science fiction characterized by an emphasis on scientific detail and/or accuracy". This criterion is too subjective to use for categorization; the category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - If we have Category:Military science fiction. we also need Category:Hard science fiction. Criteria for this category are objective, and clear [2]. -- Q Original 14:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - The external website presents a system written by a science fiction fan that probably is not recognized by the entire science fiction community. It appears to represent his opinion on the subject. We cannot classify articles based on that website. (Also, the inclusion criteria for Category:Military science fiction are very clear (science fiction with a military setting). The comparison between that category and Category:Hard science fictionfseems inappropriate.) Dr. Submillimeter 15:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply Just to be fair to the category, it's presumably using Hard science fiction for its definition, which in turn appears to be based on some actual published references (as opposed to just the external website linked above). So the term appears to probably be legitimate. Dugwiki 16:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the other hand, the term being used by writers in the field doesn't necessarily mean it's well defined. It's possible the term is still too subjective to use for category inclusion. Since I haven't yet evaluated the term's criteria for inclusion, I'll defer making a recommendation one way or another for now. Dugwiki 16:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply however, the creator of this category has included many articles which have been long debated over and rejected from the list at Hard Science Fiction (e.g. Michael Crichton, Carl Sagan). -- Jon Dowland 13:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good definition for Hard science fiction is definition created by John W. Campbell, Jr.: (Hard) science fiction uses one, or a very, very few new postulates, and develops the rigidly consistent logical consequences of these limited postulates. (...) The basic rule of science fiction is "Set up a basic proposition--then develop its consistent, logical consequences." (Introduction, Analog 6, Garden City, New York, 1966) -- Q Original 16:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more good definition: The definition of "Hard Science Fiction" is important. The analogy is between the "Hard Sciences" such as Astronomy, Physics, and Chemistry, ruled by mathematics and repeatable laboratory experiment on the one hand, and "Soft Sciences" -- fuzzy subjective fields such as Psychology, Sociology, and Anthropology where no two humans are identical the way two electrons are, and yet we still try to apply empirical methods. (...) Indeed, the disciplined author who attempts to capture the rigor of Hard Science in fiction, in terms of plausible setting and mechanism, and in the skeptical yet pragmaticly quantitative attitude of the scientist, the writing is itself quite difficult to achieve. Many writers and critics point to one specific novel as being the very model of this genre: Clement's "Mission of Gravity"[3] -- Q Original 18:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep this is a real genre, I've known about this for many years ... but like many genre categories it suffers from somewhat vague inclusion criteria, and nearly any kind of genre categorization will be subjective to some degree. If it eventually does go I'd like there to be some kind of list. -- Prove It ^(talk) 23:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply There is some kind of list, which has been maintained by actual discussion, with citations to support many of the entries, in the Hard Science Fiction article. -- Jon Dowland 13:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong keep. Longstanding subgenre, well defined within the main genre of science fiction. For further reference to the definition and its analogy to the hard sciences, I can point you to The science fiction encyclopedia (ed. P. Nicholls, Doubleday: London, 1979). Grutness...wha? 01:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep "Hard science fiction" is an established term in the genre. Bluap 15:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Established Genre. The Proffesor 01:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The proposals put forward by Q Original are fine for the definition here. However, I should note that the actual application of this genre name to a given work is rarely controversial. It would be fine enough to simply include works in this category if a reliable source attributes them as being hard sf. There's not much likelihood of disagreement anyway. — coel acan — 03:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Something what has Francis Bacon is not maintainable. Mixes novels, people, movies, fictional organisations and people. Shoehorns Stanisław Lem into wrong box. Potential for unchecked growth. Pavel Vozenilek 12:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The term Hard SF is a hot topic, which is what Hard Science Fiction attempts to explain. Inclusion in the inline lists there requires discussion and citations. So far, there has been none of this for inclusion in this category. Secondly, it is not clear what should be in this category: We have a mixture of authors, books and other things all thrown together. The category was created after the author failed to convince people as to his reasoning for including things in Hard Science Fiction itself. -- Jon Dowland 13:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I agree with Dr. Submillimeter's original assertation that this is too subjective for categorisation. fraggle 13:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom as a subjective basis for categorisation. --Xdamr^talk 19:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete--the term is a "category" in the sense of separating a group of texts from a larger field, but as has been pointed out, the criteria for selection are neither universally accepted nor consistently applied. Any attempted list will inevitably devolve into a series of arguments based on how individuals weight the various characteristics in a given text. The center may be well-defined, but the edges are decidedly fuzzy--a classic literary-taxonomy problem. RLetson 17:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong keep. This is good defined SF genre. -- Q Original 14:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete/listify - We already agreed not to list actors by television show like this mainly because of readability problems when listing categories for every performace by actors. This category should be marked to be deleted and listified like other actor by performance categories. Dr. Submillimeter 10:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Nathanian 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete without listifying - the category is designed to capture performances from both the Haunted Mansion film and the theme park attraction and my feeling is we shouldn't blend projects in a cast list. The Haunted Mansion ride article already links to the categorized performers and there is a cast list including all categorized actors from the film. Otto4711 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Delete per recent trends and no to listification. Two completely different things (the ride and the movie) that shouldn't be lumped together. Cover the cast in the respective articles. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete without listifying per Otto4711 Haddiscoe 01:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete/listify - We already agreed not to list actors by television show like this mainly because of readability problems when listing categories for every performace by actors. This category should be marked to be deleted and listified like other actor by performance categories. Dr. Submillimeter 10:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, do not listify - the main Spooks article contains a cast list more extensive than the category so there is no need to maintain a separate list article. Otto4711 16:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per established consensus and as appropriate cast list already exists. --Xdamr^talk 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Honbicot 12:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dutch people by ethnic or national origin to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, All the subcategories are named inconsitently, some are Dutch, some are Dutchs and some are Dutch people, and there is a discrepancy with hyphens. Out of all of them Turkish Dutch people looks the most normal. Ulysses Zagreb 09:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Not that I have an opinion one way or the other about discussing the naming conventions in play here, but any such discussion should be about Category:People by ethnic or national origin and all of its subcats and not just this specific one. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and clean up page links Mayumashu 04:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

only proplem is sub-cat pages need renaming - propose each be Category:Dutch of Fooian descent Mayumashu 04:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and relist subcats per Mayumashu scheme. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that I am not suggesting deletion, but renaming to a consistent format, either of for example: Turkish-Dutchs, Turkish-Dutch people, Turkish Dutch people. Ulysses Zagreb 10:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand. I am saying to Keep this category named as it is and asking for all the subcategories to be listed together in a group with a proposed new name that mateches Mayumashu's suggested format. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. --Xdamr^talk 14:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, unless reworked: The word "propaganda" is too bias of a word. Anything in Category:Slogans could potentially be called "propaganda", especially everything in Category:Political slogans. An example of a bad entry in this category is Winners Don't Use Drugs. My exception to the move for deletion is if the category is only for articles on the subject of propaganda itself. SeizureDog 08:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Propaganda is a major subject, so a category is needed, even if it is problematic. Nathanian 12:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and cleanup. So long as the articles are about types of propaganda rather than examples of it, the category should be reasonable; it is an important topic.-choster 13:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and cleanup - It desperately needs some weeding, and maybe a more tightly defined scope. "Category:Cariciatures," "Category:Scientology organizations," "Category:Scientific socialism" are some of the items that make it seem more like "Category:Things I don't like." Any kind of organized promotion or political campaign issue can technically be classed as "propaganda," but such a broad use of the term has rendered this category meaningless. That said, "propaganda" in a more narrow and precise sense, and probably the one intended by the creator, makes a good and useful category. Generally, nominating something for deletion because it needs cleaning up is a misuse of the nomination procedure. It would have been more expedient to just deleted entries that don't belong there. Bobanny 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep The description on the category page itself shows why it should be kept. It is a well established human activity carried on by governments, business, church, etc, and is known by the term 'propaganda'. Improve WP articles and categories, not tear them down. Hmains 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. May indeed need weeding. But it's a workable category and that's the legit name whether it sounds nasty or not. — coel acan — 03:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Caricature does not belong here. Pavel Vozenilek 12:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). 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: relist Tim! 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - The main Charlotte's Web article serves as a navigational hub for the various articles. The other articles and categories are extensively interlinked and just to be sure I added links to the sub-categories to the main article. No need for this category. Otto4711 04:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Categories are more than navigational hubs (Gnevin 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Delete Actually, they really aren't more than navigational hubs. The point of the category system is to serve as a index, not to serve as just a "tag" or the like. The reasoning for deletion is similar to Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous categories for people - the main article serves as a sufficient navigational hub for the reader. Dugwiki 16:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This is rendered redundant by the use of links on the Charlotte's Web article. Ravenhurst 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. The overcategorization guidelines should apply to all eponymous categories, not just people. Eponymous categories should only be created when there is an identifiable need. There should be numerous categories that are related to the topic that would be hard to find from the eponymous article, or there should be subarticles that would be uncategorized if the eponymous category did not exist. -- Samuel Wantman 08:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was relist Tim! 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - category is being used improperly as a performer by performance category. The articles on the book, films, TV series and actors are all extensively interlinked so the main article serves as a navigational hub without any need for the category. Otto4711 04:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - I cleaned up the category so that it now only contains articles on the stories/films/TV series. I have no strong opinions on keeping the category at this time, but it should not be used to categorize actors. Dr. Submillimeter 10:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep Since this category represents a franchise of closely related products, I can see keeping it for the purpose of putting all those links in the same category. On the other hand, there are so few articles I could see interlinking in the articles probably working to, so I wouldn't be opposed to deletion either. So I'd lean toward keep by default but I'll defer to deletion if desired. Dugwiki 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete There is really too little here to form a proper basis for categorisation. As Dugwiki points out, most of the articles here relate to iterations in a franchise — this is best accomplished through a series box cf Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 2#Category:Poltergeist films. Rather like eponymous bio categories, I think we need a substantial number of directly connected articles to justify categories like this.

Xdamr^talk 13:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Same as Charlotte's Web above. -- Samuel Wantman 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, 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: per subjective inclusion criterion, delete and move articles to parent. If people want to create a category for "games based on chess", they can start from Category:Chess variants. If there is a clear common ancestor, a category for games based on that can be created. Neither of those is this cat. >Radiant< 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - for the same reasons the similar categories Games similar to baseball and Games similar to Cricket were deleted. Subjective categorization. Otto4711 03:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Keep A quick look though the members of the category demonstrates that (with one exception), all of the games are genuine traditional local varients of the "chess" family, by which I mean descended from the ancient Indian game of Chaturanga. Possibly Rename to Category:Games derived from Chaturanga, but the current name makes far better sense to an English speaker (especially since the games are often referred to as "Chinese Chess", "Japanese Chess", etc). Bluap 04:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete POV-laden category per nom. Doczilla 04:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment Unlike the "baseball" and "cricket" categories, it is possible to objectively define the members of the chess family. If you take a look at the members of the category, you will see that that that are all varients of the same game. The only potential POV issue is what to call the principal game in the category. However, chess is so much more widely played than the others that I do not believe that is an issue (unlike in the Baseball category, which could equally be called "Games Similar to Rounders" Bluap 14:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep and Rename. This was renamed very recently (10 days ago) from Category:Chaturanga game family under which name it had existed non-controversially for years. It seems that the move was discussed a little at Category talk:Chess variants but never raised at CFD. As such the rename should be reverted and any further changes proposed at CFD. —Blotwell 15:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep under the current name. I renamed it from 'Chaturanga game family' because the origin of chess is a very controversal topic. Many chess historian believe that actually chess was originated from xiangqi and not from chaturanga. So, using 'chaturanga' in the name of this category as some comments above suggest is a strong POV. Andreas Kaufmann 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Categories should not be deleted for having bad names. The category seems to make sense as a logical grouping. If you don't like the name do a CFR, not a CFD. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The category was not CFDed for having a "bad name." It was CFDed for requiring subjective judgment for inclusion, specifically, requiring editors to decide whether a game was sufficiently "chess-like" to be included. Otto4711 13:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Determining whether a game is "chess-like" requires making subjective judgments about the games. However, since some similarities or historical connections among these games do exist, the articles should be interlinked through the articles' text. Grouping them together in a category does not properly explain how the games are related. Dr. Submillimeter 09:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, possible rename- The idea here is not to decide whether a game is "chess-like" but to include the games that originated from the same common ancestor as chess (i.e. Xiangqi, Shogi, Chess, Makruk, etc.). (Although probably excluding direct descendants of chess itself.) Unfortunately there is no consensus as to what that common ancestor would be, (see Kaufmann's comment above), so it's not clear what the name should be. However, I think the current solution is unsatisfactory: in biology we don't identify rodents as "rat-like animals", so to use a particular paradigm to represent the category would be POV. Kelvinc 10:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 07:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Subcategories of Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (football) which are named Category:1971 All Star (football) - Category:2006 All Star (football) (all but 1973 exist as of this nomination) and Subcategories of Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (hurling) which are named Category:1971 All Star (hurling) and Category:2006 All Star (hurling) - Category:2006 All Star (hurling) (inclusive) should be Deleted and Upmerged to their current parents. Note that there are some other child categories of these parents which are not tagged and should not be deleted/merged as part of this nomoination. These are Overcategorization similar to that removed via Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 19#Subcategories of Category:National League All-Stars as a number of persons, such as Peter Canavan and Martin O'Connell, have been All Star Awardees in multiple years. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Object: There are fifteen All-Stars selected every year, which, I feel is enough to warrant a subcategory of it's own. I realise that many of the years are pretty badly represented (with only one or two names), but this is an ongoing project so the subcategories will be filled up.

Also, the reason they were subcategorised was because the parent category was getting overcrowded, as to lose its value. If a researcher wanted to quickly know who else won an All-Star in 1995, as well as Peter Canavan, they would simply click on the categories.

As for players who have won multiple times, I think that is more indicative of the player's achievements, rather than a shortfall in the subcategorisations.--Macca7174 09:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strongest object We at WP:GAA have organise our category very well in my opinion and don't have huge unusable category's. These category's are perfectly legit,well organised and help people find articles we have on all star winning teams (Gnevin 09:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Delete all These category are excessive, and the current trend to cut down on award, performance and team categories means they are becoming even more disproportionate. Nathanian 12:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This is quite insane , some editors are moaning that category's are so big they are unusable (see stub sorting) and now we have some editors claiming category's are too small and need to be bigger.These Category's are a very logic splitting of a parent category that could contain over 400 articles and will only get bigger . A clear policy needs to defined here . Sure why dont we delete Category:Irish people and upmerge into Category:People? (Gnevin 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Comment The issue isn't having too many people in one category, The issue here is the overlapping of categories, which leads to a articles having too many categories attached to them. For example is you looked at Babe Ruth a while ago, you would have found that article in about 100 categories, one for each World Series, one for each All Star game, etc. Now it is down closer to 20. When articles egt too many categories, the categories tend to become less useful. The problem is that while someone who is in Category:Irish people is unlikely to be in another similar category (or at most 2 usually), someone who is an All Start one year, may also be an All Star 20 more times, requiring 20 additional categories if that is the way that you have it set up. Really, things like All Star rosters work better as lists. Please look at the link in this paragraph regarding overlapping categories. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment your are confusing GAA All Stars Awardswith Baseball teams ones, canavan is the current record holder with 6 all stars a record which will stand for quite some time. 1-6 categorys is hardly overlapping (Gnevin 23:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Surely following your logic Category:FIFA World Cup 1958 players and its peers should be delete and Category:Members of the 28th Dáil and its peers . These all have some sort of overlap but are very very useful .(Gnevin 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Keep per Gnevin. Jheald 13:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. An unnecessary number of subcategories from looking at their contents. fraggle 13:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said above, the categories are not fully realised yet - I am aware that a few years only have one or two names, but this can only improve.--Macca7174 10:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Once again I must protest if these are deleted i will find it very difficult not nominating 100's of similar category's and their peers for delete under the precedent that would be set here and i know that would be properly be in breech of WP:Point but with WP:Ignore all rules and the precedent set here I'd feel fully justified (Gnevin 14:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Comment I took a look at Category:Members of the 28th Dáil. I agree that it meets the same criteria that I put on this nomination and I will be nominating that grouping of categories as soon as I have time. (It might take a couple of days before I have the time to do so). I am guessing that there is less overlap in the World Cup categories since they are every 4 years instead of every year, but I haven't looked in enough detail yet. I would like to get rid of all these types of catgories which have major overlap and would be happy to discuss other categories which should also be nominated if you would like to leave me a note on my talk page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment What about the subcats of Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament? Do you suggest to merge them all into a single mega-category too? That would be madness. Jheald 16:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question why is Category:FIFA World Cup 1958 players and its peers ok with an average of 2-3 per page see Michael Owen ,David Beckham and Gary Neville but GAA all stars with an average of 2-3 per page not ok see Dublin GAA to see how many times current dublin players have won it ? (Gnevin 17:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Comments: If there is an issue with the amount of categories on a page, is there not a similar argument for having too many succession boxes, such as in the case of Babe Ruth?

One of the reasons that Category:National League All-Stars was merged with it's children categories is that there are Articles being written for each All Star game. We do not have that at WP:GAA - the actual awards would be the article - but that seems to be getting too pedantic.

The reservations that a player may be on too many subcategories may be exaggerated slightly. A player typically plays for (at most) about fifteen years at the top level - and every year there are only fifteen All Stars. Moreover, the player has to win in his specific position so, as User:Gnevin has stated above, it is highly unlikely that many players will match Peter Canavan's tally of six for a long time to come.

Would it be objectionable to have a category such as 2007 Oscar Winners - ie the highest honour a film can achieve, or 2007 Nobel Prize winners?--Macca7174 18:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Answer 2007 Oscar Winners are served by 79th Academy Awards nominees and winners and are categorized by Category:Best Supporting Actor Academy Award winners and similar sub-categories of Category:Academy Award winners. For Nobel Prize winners it seems that List of Nobel laureates is used in conjunction with Category:Nobel laureates in Economics and the other sub-categories of Category:Nobel laureates. --After Midnight⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further Comments what about the other issues I raised? And I asked would it be objectionable to have those subcateogories?

If we do merge all the Subcategories to the parents [[Category:All Stars (football)]] and [[Category:All Stars (hurling)]] each of these two categories, when fully realised, will contain (15 players x 36 years) 540 names, and that's just up to 2007. Is that any good to anyone?

If they are merged now, and down the line it is agreed that they should be subcategorised again, the effort to do so will be wasteful and unproductive for editors who could otherwise be making valuable contributions to the project.Macca7174 10:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Object It's a silly nom by someone who doesn't understand the subject matter and won't take advice from those that do. Frelke 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Object Totally ridiculous suggestion Snappy56 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all A very sensible way to reduce the number of categories on articles. The information can be listed instead. Dominictimms 21:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep we should respect the GAA Project as they know the topic better than we do and are no doubt aware of the possible population of the catgories. Removing these cats will overpopulate higher up categories that may only require introducing new sub-categories leter: what a waste of time. ww2censor 02:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/delete, use lists instead, per WP:OCAT. Just because there's a Wikiproject doesn't mean other people (not to mention standards) don't get a say in this. >Radiant< 14:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment how in the name of Jebus is 6 see also's eg

March 13

Category:The Carpenters Compilations

Category:Images of nature

Category:Landscape images

Category:Images of plants

Category:Bacterial images

Category:Frat Pack

Category:Croatian language films

Category:Pen spinning

Category:S&P 500

Category:Canadian actor cats

Category:Independent cinemas in the UK

Category:United States Air Force airmen

Category:University and college dormitories

Category:Josh Abraham albums

Category:Dictionary of Australian Biography

Category:Fortune 1000

Category:Freemen of the City of Manchester

Category:Fortune 500

Category:Jewish Encyclopedia

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ivan Kricancic

Category:Hard science fiction

Category:Haunted Mansion actors

Category:Spooks actors

Category:Dutch people by ethnic or national origin

Category:Propaganda

Category:Charlotte's Web

Category:Stuart Little

Category:Chess-like games

Subcategories of Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (football) and Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (hurling)

Category:Arthropod images

Category:Bee images

Category:Mollusk images

Category:Cephalopod images

Category:Squid images

Category:Wikipedia articles needing their fiction made clear