< November 19 November 21 >

November 20

Category:Disney actors

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 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 debate was delete and salt. BencherliteTalk 11:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Disney actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: First of all, this is a recreated category which was deleted just over a year ago, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 14#Category:Disney actors. The reason why this should be deleted because it is a performer by performance (or rather performer by employer) based category, and the precedent is that these sort of categories are unnecessary because they would fill up the bottom of notable actors who have had dozens and dozens of performances (or in this case employers). On top of that, the criteria is vague. Does guest starring on a Disney show make one a "Disney Actor"? etc. Andrew c [talk] 22:43, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Companies based in El Dorado County

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 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 debate was rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in El Dorado County to Category:Companies based in El Dorado County, California
Nominator's rationale: Rename. another one-item cat, whose one item is more in the nature of a tourist site than a company as we think of them, rename to match El Dorado County, California or delete as appropriate.Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:54, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Companies based in Del Norte County

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 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 debate was rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Del Norte County to Category:Companies based in Del Norte County, California
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match Del Norte County, California - there is only one article so this cat may be pre-mature and a merge to its parents may be as good an alternative. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Power Standards

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 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 debate was relist. BencherliteTalk 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Power Standards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I found this category in the orphanage, and placed it in Category:Standards. It doesn't seem to fit with the general pattern of categories in Category:Standards, and the category description seems rather vague (although that may just be because I don't understand the subject). I will leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American Academy of Arts and Sciences

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 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 debate was relist given nominator's change of view and lack of comments thereupon. BencherliteTalk 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Category:American Academy of Arts and Sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anomalies

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 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 debate was rename to Category:Anomalies in physics. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Anomalies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Rugrats

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, empty. BencherliteTalk 11:29, 26 November 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.

Category:Raging Planet releases

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 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 debate was delete and split. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Raging Planet releases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, divide between Category:Raging Planet artists, convention of Category:Artists by record label, and Category:Raging Planet albums, convention of Category:Albums by record label. -- Prove It (talk) 16:34, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Female models

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 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 debate was Send some editors to their rooms to think about being nice and civil to each other I have to say that you've all made quite a mess of this. ANd recategorising/creating an entire category scheme while the category is under discussion? I'm going to sidestep the flamewars below, for a moment, and just make a few comments. Category:Women by occupation does exist, but its existance is questionable per many previous discussions. The main reason for deletion for such categories in the past was that there is simply no reason to duplicate the category structure by splitting it by gender (essentially having 2 of everything). Anyway, as for this discussion, I'm going to close this as "No consensus", with a suggestion that Category:Women by occupation and its subcats be discussed as to whether each deserves the "exception" that has been bandied about. (Noting that even Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality claims that this has been controversial.) - jc37 12:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Female models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overwhelming precedent against M/F split categories, tiny category given its potential range, and everyone who could be classified here has already been classified under more specific categories, e.g. Category:Greek fashion models, etc., with few exceptions (i.e. check category contents before deleting category). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Added recommendation: Cat redirect to Category:Models, since someone will likely use it in the future instead of something more specific. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Previously discussed at CfD 2007 January 10, with a result of "keep". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I posted first, BHG posted second: check the timestamps!. BencherliteTalk 23:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
D'oh. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reply: Point taken that it should have been mentioned. But just because this category has been at CfD before does not magically make it immune from future deletion consideration, esp. since most of a year has intervened, and the consensus against gender division in categories here has become a landslide. I cannot think of an encyclopedically valid reason to have separate articles on female and male modeling in general, so the criterion you cite seems questionable to me. Narrower topics, like, say, sexual harassment, might warrant their own well-researched articles, and there might well be a gender divide there, but the category in question is not Category:Female models who have been sexually harassed. Even assuming one could somehow drawn a bright-line distinction, in some encyclopedically relevant way, between the fields of female and male modeling, how likely is such a distinction to be documentable with multiple reliable sources? I remain highly skeptical, or such an article would probably already exist. I think that best that is likely to happen is a section with a few paragraphs about male modeling and how comparatively small and unglamorous it is in comparison with female modeling and its wealthy supermodels. On what basis is your "keep" !vote "strong"? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reply My keep vote is "strong" because it is absolutely clear that it meets the criteria of WP:CATGRS. The career of a female model is substantially different from that of a male model, and it is a culturally significant subject which routinely achieves massive coverage in the general press, partucularly in regard to the career options open to women and to effects of female modelling on the female self-image and on societal perception of women. Here are some references which I found in two minutes, simply by scanning existing wikipedia articles: [1], [2], [3]; see also Size zero#Fashion_concept, about the long-running controversy over the effect of modelling on the body-image of women, which has prompted government intervention in some countries; see Naomi Wolf]]'s book The Beauty Myth. That's just a quick start, but I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies, where I'm sure that there are plenty of folks who can provide pages full of references. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reply lots of things that are "culturally significant topics" do not need separate categories. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reply: That you seem unaware of the overwhelming precedent does not mean that it doesn't exist. We do not categorize separately by gender, whether it be actors, sportspeople, US Senators, etc., etc., etc. Also, it is not a safe assumption that because something has been at XfD before that its re-XfDing is some kind of mistake on the part of the re-nominator. Dumb category and other page ideas frequently get XfDed multiple times before finally being deleted; they usually only survive the first time through flukes, like activist and cavassing editors trying to save them, malformed or poorly reasoned initial deletion nominations, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The issue is not that I am unfamiliar with precedent, as you suggest, but that I do not agree that there is overwhelming precedent (and do not agree that it is relevant in any case, since the standard from WP:CATGRS is whether a head article can be written). Could you please respond to my substantive points about significant distinctions in the careers of male and female models? --Lquilter (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reply: I do not find them substantive. You are mistaking the entire nature of this CfD. It has nothing to do with anything you are talking about, only to do with the fact that all of the models in question are already categorized in more specific categories, this category has no subcategories at all other than ones you created in an apparent attempt to force concensus to go your way, and serves no purpose. You can make an argument that every category like Category:Greek fashion models should be divided into male and female subcategories, which ultimately could lead back to a high-level category of this name, but this is not the case now, this is not the issue at the table, and it is of no relevance at all. If consensus eventually does want a solution like that, it will talk all of 10 seconds to recreate this category. There are no consequences of any kind to deleting this pointless category, no matter how much you want to turn this into a debate about sexism (and accuse me of it). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't believe I have accused you of anything. ??? Back to my substantive points: You have proposed to delete Category:Female models; the standard for WP:CATGRS is whether a head article can be written; BHG and I have adduced a number of cites suggesting that it can. Why should this category be an exception from the usual rule of WP:CATGRS? --Lquilter (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The existence of a few narrow exceptions like the heads of state one doesn't militate for expanding the idea across the board. Other categories of this sort, such as Category:Male porn stars or Category:Female athletes, should also arguably be deleted, as they simply do not rise to the level of rarity that female heads of state do. The key question to ask is whether the intersection of gender and other categorizer is so unusual as to be defining in an encyclopedically useful way. Female heads of state (so far), yes. Female models, hell no. Male models, also no in my book, and same goes for female athletes and male porn stars and most of the other lingering pointless categories of this sort. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Correction. Nominator, please re-read WP:CATGRS. The key question is not "whether the intersection is so unusual", and that is not a quote from the guideline. WP:CATGRS says "at all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And to respond to the "defining attribute" bit, actors and actresses are defined by their sex as well. The sex of an actor or actress is going to have a tremendous impact on the roles they will be offered and casting calls and advertisements for actors and actresses are overwhelmingly if not invariably sex-specific too. Yet we do not categorize actors and actresses separately and we shouldn't categorize female models separately on that basis. Otto4711 (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Precisely. And the category is useless. It is ridiculously underpopulated, and guess why - virtually all article subjects that could be classified here have already been classified under far more specific categories. If this category actually were populated, it would be so large as to be virtually unusable. I also have to note that none of the categories that could be subcats of this one are; this category is not part of any kind of nomenclature system here, but a lazy add-on by people who could not be bothered to think of something more specific and see whether a category for it exists yet (e.g. Category:Greek fashion models, etc., as already mentioned). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Under-population is not an argument for deletion, it is an argument for populating the categories. The idea that it would be too large is fully populated is simply wrong: as already proposed, it should be subdivided by country, just as Category:Male models has been. The category exists, and has been used quite properly, and need not be used to the exclusion of any other category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Correction: I did not submit underpopulation as a deletion argument, I exhibit as concrete proof that the the category is not needed - all of its member articles are already appropriately categorized much more specifically, and this category only exists at all as random afterthought, created by people who are not aware that we do not have F/M category division except in really unusual cases. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Underpopulation not a reason for deletion, unless the category has no potential for groeth per WP:OCAT. It is also not much use as proof that a catrgory is not needed, because categories can be undepopulate for all sorts of reasons, such as editors being unaware of their existence (I regularly find such actegories and populate them). As to your last point, the question at stake here os whether this is one of those unusual cases; there is disagreement on that point, but that's no reason to dismiss the category as a "ranom afterthought", or to assume that it was created by people unaware of the guidelines; it could equally have been created by people well awre of the guidelines, who reached a different conclusion to yours. Please can you stop assuming that anyone who reached a different conclusion to yours has acted out of ignorance? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • describe those who populated this category as "lazy", and as "people who could not be bothered to think"
  • describe this as "dumb category" which can survive only by "activist and cavassing editors "
  • calling the category "useless", "ridiculously underpopulated"
This sort of language comes across as highly aggressive, and could be interpreted as misogynist; it is quite inappropriate for CfD. Please may I ask the nominator to remain civil and to assume good faith on the part of those who created this category and those who argue for its retention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - while I agree that the language is aggressive, attempting to paint it or the nominator as misogynist is over-the-top. Unless of course you're assuming that "aggression" equals "male" in which case you may be guilty of making the same sort of assumptions you're accusing the nominator of. Let's all focus on the category, shall we? Otto4711 (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment and then some No kidding. BrownHairedGirl, you have a lot of nerve throwing up a civility warning in the face of someone you then accuse of woman-hatred. I could say a lot of other things here, but I'm just going to stop now or I really will be incivil and might get blocked for the first time in my Wikilife for a richly deserved WP:NPA violation in your direction. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reply. SMcCandlish, I didn't accuse you, I pointed how this can be interpreted and askes for civility. If you don't want questions asked about what's going on here, then please stop displaying so much aggression. All I am asking is that you assume that the category was created in good faith by intelligent editors, who you believe to be mistaken, and that you desist from attaching labels such as "dumb", "lazy" and "ridiculous" to issues involving women. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*Strong reply: This is precisely the off-kilter and downright fallacious argument I've been talking about (not to mention that it's also another ad hominem attack argument; you are blatantly attempting for the second time in a row to character-assassinate me as a sexist, as a handwave to distract everyone from what this CfD is actually about (a redundant category). Distinguish between the political issues surrounding the topic of category and the category itself (one is something of substance - a subset of people, of a particular gender in a particular occupation - about which socio-political issues may swirl the other is an abitrary, virtual abstraction or organizing articles; like the words of Christ versus a particular copy of the bible, or your country as a geopolitical entity, and a piece of cloth on a flagpole that is a stand-in for it). The politics have nothing to do with it, and the existence of the category (or not) has nothing to do with anyone's position on that topic. You seem to be willfully making a Korzybskian error of mistaking the map for the territory, the menu for the meal. Redundant categories are dumb, lazy and ridiculous - that's what they get deleted all the time. Categories don't get special treatment just because their topic happens to be sensitive. If they aren't needed, we don't keep them. The article in question are already completely adequately categorized. That is it, no more, no less. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody in this debate is asking for special treatment because a topic is sensitive, just that it be discussed rationally in wrt to the relevant guideline rather than by attaching pejorative labels such as "dumb, lazy and ridiculous". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The issue was never population of the category (it is plural now only because you went and created more of them instead of waiting to see if consensus would be to keep even one of them), but of its redundancy and secondarily Wikipedia's resistance to gender-specific categories without a compelling reason, on a per-topic basis to have them. Please do not miscast the deletion nomination (again). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gender is a defining characteristic of almost everyone. "Defining characteristic" isn't the standard that's used for gendered categories. Otto4711 (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Exactly, Otto. But BrownHairedGirl has gone and made a huge mess of this by replicating this category all through the modelling hierarchy. (Remember my allegedly incivil comment about "activist and cavassing editors"? An old legal maxim of in-spirit relevance here: "Truth of the allegation is an absolute defense against charges of defamation." >;-) Anyway, spreading the category like wildfire is no different from sabotaging a CfD by depopulating the category before the debate is over. This now needs to be a mass-CfD. <sigh> I probably won't do it myself, as I have better things to do, and I don't want to argue with people so blinded by their ideology that they can't understand the difference between pointing out that a category isn't needed and an attack against their socio-political views (which, ironically, I share). Since I'm already branded a kitten-stabber, and I'm genuinely ticked off about it, I don't think my participating any further on this one (or a mass-nom followup, other than a "delete per nom and per previous nom") will be productive. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 16:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reply. Sigh :(
    SMcCandlish complained above that if populated, the category would be too large, so I followed the usual solution and created subcategories ... and in return I get called an "activist and canvassing editor" and "blinded by their ideology". If someone can't engage in civil discussion of how a category stacks up against the guidelines, assuming good faith on the part of other editors, what is the point of bring an issue to Categories for discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is precisely as manipulative of a CfD to go and aggressively populate a category to try to make your WP:POINT seem stronger and the category more onerous to delete as it is to do the opposite and depopulate a category out from under everyone's noses, so that it no longer seems worth discussing, when the CfD on that category is still ongoing. AGF? I fail to see how you can possibly expect any assumption of good faith any longer after you've character assassinated someone, in frankly really nasty terms, twice back-to-back. You've demonstrated clearly that you are not in fact acting in good faith in this debate, and have therefore lost any right to that assumption. I stand firmly by my observation that you will not see past your beliefs and feelings on gender issues (which are not at stake here, and which I would ironically almost certain agree with you on completely, if we were actually having that discussion), to actually address the entirely neutral point of this CfD. How else can you possibly mistake criticism of a category and whether it makes sense to have it, as an attack against women? You've directly stated that that's what you think I'm doing, and I cannot fathom how you could arrive at such a conclusion other than issue-blindness. I also have to stand again by my observation that you are using "gaming the system" techniques to shape the CfD outcome, not to mention ad hominem attacks. All three of these tactics of yours are woefully fallacious, and your sexism accusations in particular reek of argumentum ad Hitlerum and Godwin's law, simply substituting "misogynist" for "nazi". The sad thing is, you'll probably actually win. Fallacious as they are, such tactics are often effective. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Furthermore, you've been misquoting and selectively quoting me the entire time, to present a straw man. I did not label any editors lazy or dumb. I labelled a category lazy and dumb. I did not say that any editor could not be bothered to think. I said that some evidently could not be bothered to think of something more specific and see whether appropriate categories already existed (they did and still do); most editors don't seem to have that problem, since comparatively hardly any articles were actually in this category, given the number of model articles there are, already more specifically categorized. Calling a category useless and underpopulated is not a civility issue. I'm sorry that you seem to want to interpret any criticism of a category that is in some way related to women, to be somehow necessarily a criticism of women or of feminism. It just isn't. Baseball and billiards already have categories. If someone created a "Games with sticks" category to put them in, I would CfD that (and I like baseball and billiards) for precisely the same reason as this one: It is redundant and unneeded and all the articles that could possibly fit in that category already have perfectly rational homes in the extant categorization system. The fact that someone after a lot of effort could create a well-sourced "games with sticks" article wouldn't obviate the pointlessness of the category, no matter what something like WP:CATGRS says. To the extent WP:CATGRS conflicts with WP:OVERCAT, I side with WP:OVERCAT, else we'll soon have a WP:CATxyz for every issue out there, and additional exceptions to every rule will sprout everywhere like weeds. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • McCandlish, if this category is deleted, it is but a small tidyup matter to delete the subcats in a further CfD; the difference with depopulation is that emptying a category removes evidence of what he category was being used for, whereas populating an existing category is a widely-encouraged form of editing.
    As to the language used, it may indeed be that there was nothing particularly anti-woman about your use of those terms here, and that you are in the habit of using derogatory terms in on other subjects when people disagree with you, in which case I stand corected.
    If you take the the time to check out any one of a number of CfD debates relating to WP:CATGRS, you will see that I have applied the same tests, and often supported deletion. It's a real pity that when there have been several substantive responses here addressing the criteria in the relevant guideline, you prefer to make assumptions about my "beliefs and feelings on gender issues" when I have not discussed them are not at issue. We have here a specific, relevant guideline; please do try to adress the tests which it sets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • They are of a different character; namely they aren't occupations in which women dominate, just as the male occupational categories are just the opposite. I'm sure there are a few exceptions that should be CfD'd as well, like Category:Female dancers, but the pattern is pretty clear. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Even if a particular gender or ethnicity or sexuality is in the majority in some intersectional category, the standard is still whether a head article can be written. Just to give one blindingly obvious reason why, the majority now is not necessarily the majority then. If research exists talking about that GRS aspect of that professsion, then a head article can be written and a category supported. --Lquilter (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks I get it now, but I'm still for keep. One of my favorite arguments is WP:COMMON, which I probably like because I'm so weak on all the other stuff I should know. But a female model -- especially the supermodel/superwaifs mentioned earlier -- is for me such a demonstrably different creature and kettle of fish. The whole industry is built on (kinds of) female beauty. They become movie stars and sex symbols and the icons for our times. And of course they face different perils. There's a whole movement now about overly thin models. Guys don't figure in any of that. I think there should be two different main articles, and categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I just read Supermodel and I see that there is a little section on male supermodels, within. Jeez, maybe it's just because I'm a hetrosexual guy but I just don't see it as the same thing at all. I haven't heard of any of these guys. I'll be interested to see what's done with this category, there's been some strong arguments made (and mine, I fully admit, is not one of them). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your arguments were fine, I thought; I was replying to SMcCandlish. --Lquilter (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and one last thought. SMcCandlish brought up the porn star category earlier. I would suggest that whatever is decided here sets something of a precedent for Category:Female porn stars as the position of women in the straight porn industry does mirror fashion in some respects: a) the industry is built on the female star b) the male counterpart is vastly less important and c) women in the industry are subject to much stricter and tougher standards regarding body image, etc. Just a thought. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 25 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs about fame

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 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 debate was speedy delete per user request Kwsn (Ni!) 17:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Songs about fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - another vague "about" category. How much of a song needs to be "about" fame to qualify for the category? Otto4711 (talk) 14:01, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan

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 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 debate was merge. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan to Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment
Nominator's rationale: Merge, thin population, only 1 article; parent category has only 11 articles. It is overmuch subdivision. Nightshadow28 (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong merge; blatant overcat. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:08, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Outer Limits

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 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 debate was rename, without prejudice to further consideration of whether merger would be best. BencherliteTalk 00:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

rename - WP:TVNC--As3x (talk) 12:01, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds

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 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 debate was already deleted as empty as somebody decided to pre-empt the decision. Impatient. Next time, please don't. BencherliteTalk 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dove breeds to Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds
Nominator's rationale: The new category will be a better description of the article pages currently under the "Dove breeds" category. As discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy Sting_au Talk 11:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. Doves are regarded as smaller varieties of Columba if you check that genus, most of them are regarded as "pigeons" in any case. I don't believe you understand what I am trying to do here? The vast majority (if not all) of the pages that carry the Category:Dove breeds tag are in fact referencing pigeon breeds (as opposed to say "Dove varieties"). Also the symantics of the whole thing give us our best idea of how to treat this subject. A "breed" is refering to a man made variety of livestock. Doves generally refer to species variety as found out in nature. Pigeon "breeds" are just that. Man made breeds and my proposal that the category be changed from Dove breeds to Pigeon breeds is I believe a legitimate proposal. Sting_au Talk 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not speediable, please relist. I know that I certainly don't follow what you're trying to do here: neither name is in the least suggestive of domestication. If that's the key distinction, please make it explicit. e.g. Category:domesticated pigeons, Category:domesticated pigeon breeds, or something to that effect. Alai (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds fair. I think Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds is the most appropriate of your suggestions. I'd be happy to go with that one. I've capitalized the "D" though. Now before I relist it are there any objections to Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds ? Sting_au Talk 05:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd recommend relisting anyway, in the interests of least-surprising-result, since it doesn't fit any of the speediable criteria. (It's possible, for example, that there could be confusion of expectation/misunderstanding/disagreement as to what this is for in the first place...) BTW, initial caps in categories are not significant, as with pages. (Or if you prefer, everything is mapped to initial caps regardless.) Alai (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. I'll go relist it. I guess I need to delete the old one because it generates that notice on the category page? Never mind, I'll figure it out. Thanks for your help. Sting_au Talk 05:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, what I meant was, relist as a non-speedy CFR. It doesn't fit any of the speedy criteria. Alai (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

Comment - looking at the articles in the cat, they refer to breeds of ornamental pigeon, and the principle article is List of pigeon breeds - so "accurate" in that sense. (As a UK English speaker it happens that I do also find it more accurate linguistically, but that wasn't the main point). I note by the way that the correct name for a "rock dove" has been agreed to be "Rock Pigeon" by both US and UK ornithologists. HeartofaDog (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the five days up yet? Can the Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds be created now? Sting_au Talk 12:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just done it. Thanks to everyone for advice etc. Cheers, Sting_au Talk 23:52, 26 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Media in Columbus, Ohio

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 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 debate was no consensus. BencherliteTalk 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Media in Columbus, Ohio to Category:Columbus, Ohio media
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:American media by market is unclear as to which form to use, 'foo media' or 'media in foo'. This nomination is to determine if there is consensus for one form over the other. If consensus appears to exist, I have no objection if someone wishes to add the other categories to this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:16, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Skyscrapers in Columbus

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 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 debate was rename. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Skyscrapers in Columbus to Category:Skyscrapers in Columbus, Ohio
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous and does not follow the form for most sub cats of Category:Columbus, Ohio. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:04, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Companies based in Columbus

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 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 debate was rename. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Columbus to Category:Companies based in Columbus, Ohio
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are several US cites called Columbus so this name is rather ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:59, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:California Freeway and Expressway System

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 - all items merged into other appropriate categories. SkierRMH (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:California Freeway and Expressway System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways#Category:California Freeway and Expressway System, this has been replaced by Category:Freeways in California and California Freeway and Expressway System. NE2 07:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Response: It's obviously a delete, like everything else there that is not flagged specifically as a rename or merge. Why would we do anything else with something (allegedly) made obsolete by a replacement category? <puzzled> — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:12, 20 November 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.

Category:Descent: FreeSpace

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 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 debate was rename. BencherliteTalk

Propose renaming Category:Descent: FreeSpace to Category:FreeSpace series
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Descent prefix has no role in the series. Official games only consist of Descent: FreeSpace — The Great War, its expansion, and FreeSpace 2. The category has greater possible use from the mod community (utilising the modified FreeSpace engine under the FreeSpace 2 Source Code Project. Volition themselves use the term FreeSpace to refer to their products. Jappalang (talk) 05:20, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mimar Sinan

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 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 debate was delete, having now moved two buildings to Category:Mimar Sinan buildings. BencherliteTalk 00:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Mimar Sinan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization. All building articles are already in a buildings subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 02:47, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sinan buildings

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 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 debate was rename. – Black Falcon (Talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sinan buildings to Category:Mimar Sinan buildings
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per convention of parent Category:Buildings and structures by architect. Otto4711 (talk) 02:46, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kings of Nigeria

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 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 debate was rename as nominated. Perhaps not a perfect solution but better than using "Kings", as Picaroon explained. Sub-categorising 14 articles by "type of royalty" did not attract much support. BencherliteTalk 00:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Kings of Nigeria to Category:Nigerian royalty
Nominator's rationale: To encompass both genders, and because Nigeria isn't a royal entity. These people were/are kings of entities that are inside or partly inside what is now Nigeria. Picaroon (t) 01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think Otto makes a good point here. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we just sorted this out merely because we're dealing with a different issue here. I'm not 100% certain that there are Nigerian queens, but it seems quite likely, especially considering that my wife has had several Nigerian princesses in her college classes (I kid you not). Cgingold (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My understanding is that Nigerian queens exist in abundant numbers, but none seem to be categorised as such yet. Kings or Paramount chiefs are I think the usual terms, but they would be "Kings in Nigeria" to avoid confusion I think. Many of these are historical figures who ruled large areas by any standard (in fact all seem historical, most from very long ago). Oddly the Emirs from the north, like Ado Bayero, aren't in this category. Anyway I think "royalty" is the best way to go. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Generally, kings, queens, princes, and princesses are found in the south and center of the country. The Sultan of Sokoto and the emirs are in the north. It would be wrong to term the Hausa-Fulani (northern) royals as kings, quite simply because they're not kings; they are, however, royalty. So, if this renaming nomination proceeds, I'll categorize them as Nigerian royalty too. But "Kings of Nigeria" on Bayero's page would make no sense. Picaroon (t) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems a bad idea to me - no doubt each group has a different word for "king" and it is not what we do in Europe etc. Look at the oddly mixed and stranded Category:Emirs. "rulers" or "monarchs" are available if we get desperate. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would create a huge amount of categories, all with only a few entries. Categories for Igwes, Obas, Alakes, Obis, Olus, the list goes on. Not particularly feasible. Picaroon (t) 17:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is exactly to differentiate between different types of titles. The emirs of the north are not directly the same as kings in the south. However, one could try to find broader concepts that would group together some of the smaller categories. --Soman (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To my mind the potential for joining the Sultans & Emirs in the north into a "Nigerian royalty" cat is another strong argument for it. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's probably a good idea for those with a "few" entries, but still leaves the issue that no one has ever been "King of Nigeria" - so we should do both I think. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 21 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Open source games

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 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 debate was No consensus to rename -Though there seems to be a few concerns about the name as it is. Feel free to re-nominate categories to determine between "open-source" or "open source", and between "games" or "video games" (or "software-based games), etc. - jc37 11:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Open source games to Category:Open source games software
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most categories used for software have either "software" or "(software)" as part of the name. Thus quickly identified in lists of subcategories and supporting "Category:software" searches. tooold (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - But most games software-based games don't have "software" in their category name, do they? --Lquilter (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC) (edited for clarity)Reply[reply]
  • The main article's, Open source games, first line is Open source games (short open games) are video games which are open-source software so, yes, these games definitely have software. Alternatives to the proposed name would include 1. putting software in ()s, e.g. (software) 2. renaming the main article (does Wikipedia have a guideline about plural names?). Nominator prefers the main article name to be unchanged in the category name, but is happy with any rename that includes "software". tooold (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clear -- I meant, have software in the name (obviously they are made of software). See Otto4711's point below. --Lquilter (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still not clear - almost no software products have software in their title. QuickBooks, example below, is typical of software names. Or look at Category:Business software for many more examples. The listings there with "software" in their title are about software, not specific software products. tooold (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you are persistently misunderstanding me, and that suggests to me that you are misunderstanding the way this category reasonably could and should work. I have changed my recommendation summary to oppose because this category gathers together games based on the way they are developed (open source); not the format in which they are written (software) and not software platforms. See Category:Video games which includes computer games and which are all software-based. --Lquilter (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does it mean when a category name includes "software"? Why is QuickBooks software and Hellcarrier not? Is an instantiation of an accounting system substantively different from an instantiation of a game? And suppose the source code for Hellcarrier was not accessible - would that change any of these answers??? tooold (talk) 16:55, 21 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Paintings by artist

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 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 debate was No consensus - Concerns about nicknames, concerns whether the convention should be reversed (paintings by artist, instead of artist paintings). Please feel free to relist as less of a group nomination (which should help resolve the nickname concerns/questions). This isn't the first time the Works by creator conventions have been questioned. Please feel free to nominate the whole Category:Paintings by artist category (or even the whole Category:Works by artist system) for a reversal of convention. - jc37 04:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming a number of categories in Category:Paintings by artist to include the full name of the painter.
Nominator's rationale: On May 4, 2006, I proposed the renaming of Category:Vermeer paintings to Category:Johannes Vermeer paintings. The closing admin declined this, "pending a mass rename of paintings cats." As far as I can tell, that renaming hasn't taken place. My reasoning of May 4, 2006 still stands: I believe that a subcategory of Category:Paintings by artist would need to include the full name of the painter, unless the painter was known by a single name. The most appropriate guideline for this would be the name of the corresponding article, as is outlined in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#General naming conventions: "When creating an article one should ... create a category of the same or similar name on the same topic" and "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories."
For this reason, I propose the renaming of the following categories:
  • Category:Botticelli paintings‎ to Category:Sandro Botticelli paintings‎
  • Category:Carpaccio paintings‎ to Category:Vittore Carpaccio paintings
  • Category:Chagall paintings‎ to Category:Marc Chagall paintings‎
  • Category:Correggio paintings‎ to Category:Antonio da Correggio paintings‎
  • Category:Dürer paintings‎ to Category:Albrecht Dürer paintings‎
  • Category:Mantegna paintings‎ to Category:Andrea Mantegna paintings‎
  • Category:Perugino paintings‎ to Category:Pietro Perugino paintings‎
  • Category:Rubens paintings‎ to Category:Peter Paul Rubens paintings‎
  • Category:Vermeer paintings‎ to Category:Johannes Vermeer paintings‎
  • Category:Zoffany paintings‎ to Category:Johann Zoffany paintings‎
In all of these requests for renaming, I'm using the name of the corresponding article as a guideline. For example, I haven't nominated Category:Pontormo paintings, because the article on this painter is called Pontormo. AecisBrievenbus 00:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's rather counter to your "plays by" !vote just now, isn't it Mike? Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The two have nothing to do with each other. The plays nomination is about order; for consistency's sake, I think they should be made to look like novels, which put the work in front of the creator. I'm not taking a stand on visual arts order, which affects buildings, sculptures, and many other category types; similarly, I'm not suggesting that the music categories be flipped around. This nomination is about content; for consistency's sake, I think they should be made to look like any creative work category, which all use full names. But just in case you're hypothesizing about my comments even further, I think Category:Shakespearean plays should become Category:Plays by William Shakespeare.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would if the sorting codes are done correctly - not in itself a huge problem. I think the convention you mention is rather old-fashioned now - museums and auction houses have nearly all abandoned it for more precise terms ("attributed to...", "follower of..." etc), and we don't use the covention in WP. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 21 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Channelling

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 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 debate was No action - Please feel free to renominate based on the discussion below. - jc37 11:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Channelling to Category:Spiritual mediums
Nominator's rationale: Merge, These two categories appear to be about the same thing, although the former is categorized under categories for New Age, Occult and Pseudoscience while the latter is categorized under Spirituality. I'm having trouble seeing much daylight between the two and would like to know if there is a consensus to merge, somewhow. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: A potential problem is the nomenclature: "Spiritual mediums" means "particular people who channel spirts" (allegedly <cough>) while "Channelling" (which I think should be "Channeling" anyway, though I'm not 100% sure this double-L thing isn't some US/UK dialect issue) means "the act of spiritually mediumizing". I Strongly agree that a merge is virtually demanded, but it may need to involve a rename on the side, e.g. both extant categories merge into a new "Spirtual channel[l]ing" so that all articles in both categories will fit. It's completely absurd for two categories for this to exist, regardless (and regardless what I think of the subject matter; this is a redundancy issue, pure and simple). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Thanks, that's what I had thought, too. A merge and rename may be what's needed, along the lines of what you have suggested.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Looney Tunes Golden Collection

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 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 debate was Delete (I'm presuming that the membership is only Looney Tunes Golden Collection and the 5 volume pages.) - Much of the discussion below referred more to the AfD, or to concerns about the nominator (who appears civil for the most part, but whose recent talk page comments at times seem to be a bit too close to biting other editors). Note that I closed AFD for the individual volume articles (with a result of "keep"). As for the category, this is utterly duplicative of the main article (and the navbox Template:Looney Tunes Golden Collection - the need of which seems questionable, at best). - jc37 11:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Looney Tunes Golden Collection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Empty category and completely unncessary. Even if the articles up for AfD are kept, that's still only six articles in a very narrow category. Collectonian (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The Category is only empty because User:Collectonian merged all the articles. In the merge, most of the information was lost. Where does one go for the list of cartoons in each volume now? That information is gone. There's 60 cartoons per volume so it makes sense to have a separate page per volume, rather than have an enormous article with 300 cartoons (and growing every year). Plus, there was no discussion before the extremely lossy merge. I vote to revert all the changes that User:Collectonian made today. We should be voting before he makes giant unilateral edits like that, not afterwards. DavidRF (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per previous AfDs, there is absolutely no reason for a DVD release to have individual volumes, nor is it necessary to list every cartoon short that is included on every volume. The main Looney Tunes Golden Collection is not that big at all, and there is no reason not to have the DVD release information in the article. Work is being done now to incorporate the pertinent information from each volume to the neglected main article. Collectonian (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I disagree. I don't understand why you get to delete large quantities of information and then call for a vote? Why does it not work the other way around? Who made you the editor in charge here?!? Previous AfD's?!? Which ones? These are not Power Rangers DVD sets. These are Warner Brothers cartoons and deserve to have the cartoon shorts listed. Again I ask? What was wrong with the way it was before and who are you to unilterally make these decisions? DavidRF (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am going to undo your changes. You should call for a vote before you make big changes. Not after. DavidRF (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if the AfDs say to keep the individual articles, I still think this category is unnecessary. There is also already a template for this as well (though is it also up for TfD), and the main article links to the five subarticles. I can understand a single Looney Tunes category, but one for just six articles seems like excessive categorization to me. Why not have them in the main Category:Looney Tunes where the rest of the Looney Toon DVD articles are filed, or make a sub category of Category:Looney Tunes/DVD Releases to put all of them in, which would be consistent with the songs, shorts, etc, categories? Collectonian (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • But we do have quite a few Category:Music videos and DVDs subcats by artist and presumably if there were multiple notable Beatles DVDs then they'd end up in a category. If the individual articles are kept then it makes sense to categorize them rather than having six articles cluttering up the main category. If they're deleted or merged then fine, delete the category. But since the status of the articles is unsettled then there's no rush to delete the category. CFD will still be here in five days when the AFD has closed. Otto4711 (talk) 16:46, 20 November 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More