December 14
Category:Films Produced Through Project Greenlight
- 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; already listified. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Films Produced Through Project Greenlight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Project Greenlight has apparently finished its run, leaving this category small and without prospects for growth. This is the only category of its kind (PG was itself a production, not a studio or series), although that does not in itself always necessitate deletion. If retained, the capitalization should be standardized.-choster (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify in main article and Delete also convert to template to be placed in all articles (if there is none at present). Peterkingiron (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The contents are all already enumerated in the main article.-choster (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tar sands
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Bituminous sands and Category:Bituminous sands of Canada. (I'm interpreting the discussion on this compromise as applying to both categories—the general parent and the "of Canada" one. If I'm wrong about that, someone who was involved in the discussion please let me know). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Tar sands to
Category:Oil sands Category:Bituminous sands
- Category:Tar sands of Canada to Category:Oil sands of Canada
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. To reflect the change of name of the main article in this category. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my proposal to Category:Bituminous sands Beagel (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the child category Category:Tar sands of Canada to this nomination; if one changes so should the other.-choster (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Preliminary comment - I would not object to renaming Category:Tar sands of Canada to Category:Oil sands of Canada, since that reflects the prevailing usage in that country. But I do have concerns about the proposed renaming of the head category. Ideally, that category name would in some way incorporate both terms, to reflect the fact that both are widely used, with "oil sands" preferred in Canada and "tar sands" in the United States. I read the main article as well as the discussion on renaming at Talk:Oil sands#Requested move, which mostly revolved around the Canadian industry. My sense is that the resulting decision, though certainly defensible, basically reflected the focus on Canadian issues. However, I'm less concerned about the name chosen for the article, since both terms are referenced in the article's Intro, and Tar sands still exists as a redirect. That kind of solution is not available when it comes to Categories, hence my reluctance to sign off on a change to Category:Oil sands. Though it may be somewhat awkward, I would prefer to rename to Category:Oil sands and tar sands, if no better solution can be found. (Category:Oil and tar sands, while more elegant, would be too ambiguous.) Cgingold (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Given that the discussion about the article name does not appear to have been noticed in WP:RM, I'm not sure we need to support the current article's name. I think that Category:Bituminous sands would be a more accurate term. So unless there is some case to be made for not using that, I think I'll back renaming to Category:Bituminous sands. I'll note that this term is used in the lead of the main article. I don't believe that I would be able to support the current proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave some thought to this name myself, since it's both neutral and technically accurate. The only reason I didn't suggest using it is because the other terms are far more familiar to the general public. But I'm certainly open to it if other editors feel it's the best solution. Cgingold (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Having to revert vast numbers of anon IP POV warriors is inevitable with either "Tar" or "Oil", both of which have POV baggage. See Talk:Oil_sands#Tar_sands_versus_oil_sands. We would be better to use the more technically correct "Bituminous" even if it is less recognized. In any case, the ((category redirect)) template should ensure that whichever one of the three is entered, the agreed one prevails. The main article will continue to need redirects and an explanatory hatnote.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Tar sands to Category:Bituminous sands. Clearly the better choice for the parent category. No POV issues and avoids using a name that may be dependant on local usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Tar sands to Category:Bituminous sands. The former is the least accurate term, the latter the most accurate term. Oil sands is more accurate than tar sands since bitumen is simply an extremely viscous form of oil, whereas tar is chemically different from oil. The term "tar sands" arose because the bitumen looked much like the tar produced as a by-product of coal gas synthesis in the last century, but it didn't catch on in areas where coal gas was not manufactured (e.g. Western Canada). The word bitumen may not be familiar to most people, but at least it gets away from the POV issues and the loaded language in the environmental debates.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, I wouldn't object to renaming Category:Tar sands of Canada to Category:Oil sands of Canada. Since you were deeply involved in the talk page discussion, what is your view on that one? Most commonly used term, or consistency with head category? Cgingold (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My first choice would be Category:Bituminous sands of Canada. My second choice would be Category:Oil sands of Canada. The first is most accurate, the second is fairly accurate but suffers from a bit of marketing hype. Category:Tar sands of Canada would be my last choice since it is least accurate and suffers the most from loaded language.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to "tamper" with your words, or I would make the change myself, but you should amend your proposal, striking thru the original target names and adding the new ones. Cgingold (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Bituminous", or "Oil", just not "Tar". RockyMtnGuy has covered the reasons why perfectly as far as I'm concerned. Oosh (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. I also think either Bituminous or Oil would be better than Tar. I would probably lean more to Oil Sands since it is so much more commonly used than Bituminous Sands (at least in my part of the world). To be honest I've never seen Bituminous Sands used, I don't know if that should play a role in category naming (that is, should common usage override scientific precision?). I agree oil sands is also a loaded term, but not so loaded as Tar Sands is in the other direction, for reasons described above. TastyCakes (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is the compromise given the issues with oil or tar. It is possible that oil or tar might work in sub categories based on local usage. But a neutral parent name is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Controversial films
- 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 (and salted) as re-created material. Has been previously deleted under various names here, here, here, and here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Controversial films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Per WP:OR and a category that has already been deleted once before. Lugnuts (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only once?? Speedy Delete and Salt - Categories like this have been deleted repeatedly as they are hopelessly subjective.
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per previous rationale. Occuli (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "Controversial" is too wide to have a category; I'm pretty sure a lot of films could be potentially controversial. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk • contribs) 17:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Controversial is clearly subjective. How would the creator of the category justify what is controversial? Surely a high proportion of films have some form of controversy or have parts that ar enot approved of by various communities, however small. Even the scene from Pinocchio where his nose grows bigger can be seen as controversial in that it is offensive to Gods creation by changing a creatures body and of course because he is lying and therefore committing a deadly sin. The Bald One White cat 17:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just in case anybody is tempted to dismiss your example of Pinocchio as merely a bit of reduction ad absurdum, I can tell you with a straight face (no pun intended!) that Bambi -- a film that most people would think of as completely inoffensive -- would have to be included because of the scene where Bambi's mother is shot by a hunter. Controversial?? You betcha! Cgingold (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Artists by state
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Artists by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 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:Northwestern artists
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Northwestern artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete - This is the only category of its kind (for the Northwestern US). I suspect we would have more such cats if other editors felt they were useful.
Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - its sole article appears unrelated to the NW anyway. Occuli (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - sorting by state is reasonable; but, this is not necessary. Neier (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Note the subject of the only article attended school in New Jersey, college in Michigan, and lives in New York! Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
State people by occupation
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:California people by occupation to Category:People from California by occupation
- Propose renaming Category:Maine people by occupation to Category:People from Maine by occupation
- Propose renaming Category:Hawaiian people by occupation to Category:People from Hawaii by occupation
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Bring these 3 states in line with the other 47 as in Category:American people by occupation by state, and also their state-specific parent cats such as Category:People from California. Neier (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Disease-related charities
- 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; article redirects are harmless. category redirects have their own inherent problems, and Cgingold is correct, this is pretty specific to type in, making it unlikely that someone would do so. If it were to fix a typo, that would be one thing, but it's not . Kbdank71 17:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Disease-related charities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete - This was emptied and converted to a category redirect back in February, but I really don't see any reason to keep it hanging around, since it's not what I would call an "obvious" category-name that someone would expect to find. Cgingold (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Redirects are harmless. They may also serve the fucntion of discouraging re-creation, if the editor checks the categories he has used to ensure they are suitable.
- 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:Accidental killers
- 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 -- Samir 01:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Accidental killers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete The real causes of "accidental" deaths is very often disputed. To label, e.g. drivers in fatal car accidents 'killers' is a violation of WP:BLP. Gilliam (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Gilliam (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as interesting as the category seems, Gilliam does have a point. We can't label individuals who have accidentally killed as "murderers". It's slanderous. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The category is not labeling anyone a murderer and it's not a violation of BLP to label someone a killer if there is reliable sourcing that they have killed. Otto4711 (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have to confess, I didn't take this one seriously the first time I saw it. But now that there's a real discussion under way I've taken a look at the contents. I'm inclined to favor Keeping the category, but if it's retained it really needs to be Renamed, as the current name is just awful. Something along the lines of "People [involved in/responsible for] accidental deaths" is what I have in mind. (Hopefully that can be improved upon.) Cgingold (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree that the current name is awful, but what's more, it is a violation of WP:BLP's policy to prevent slander.- Gilliam (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as the information regarding the living person's being responsible for accidentally killing someone is neutral, verifiable and not dependent upon original research it is not a violation of WP:BLP. Otto4711 (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, could certainly be interpreted as slanderous. Rename if kept.Bjones (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - accidentally causing the death of another person is certainly defining of the accidental killer. Ted Kennedy for example may very well have been president had it not been for his accidentally killing Mary Jo Kopechne. Again, this is in no way a violation of WP:BLP so long as those included in the category are established through independent reliable sources. If the current name is a problem then the rename suggested by Cgingold addresses it. Otto4711 (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Shopping centres in Avon
- 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: keep current name. Feel free to nominate again if someone comes up with "a better means of categorising things ... in the former county". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Shopping centres in Avon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete Avon is a local government district that was abolished in 1996. Few if any local people identify with Avon any more and now use North Somerset / Bath & North East Somerset / Bristol / South Gloucestershire to identify the area. It is wrong to use a category such as this to group new items in a non-existent area. The only justification for using any Avon-related category is for items which were directly related to the county. TimTay (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain category. The area which was administered by Avon CC, 1974-96, is now administered by the four unitary local authorities, outside the control of the current county councils of Gloucestershire and Somerset. Three of the UAs are within the so-called "traditional counties" of Gloucestershire and Somerset, but policy as I understand it is that those areas should not be used for categorising anything other than historic features. Bristol itself was a separate county after the 14th century. The area of former Avon now has no agreed area-wide name (although the term West of England is sometimes used), and the term Avon is generally regarded by many organisations as the "least bad" description for the area. Hence, it should continue to be used for those categories which group current features of the area such as shopping centres. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why Avon, which was abolished in 1996, should be used to categorise shopping centres, all of which were built after 1996. If you take a look at Category:Shopping centres in England you will see that there is relatively little categorisation, but that which exists is tied to specific and well defined areas such as Greater Manchester, London and Yorkshire. This category is now redundant as its former constituents have now been re-categorised into their proper areas. --TimTay (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The examples which you cite, such as Greater Manchester, Tyne and Wear, are also areas which no longer exist as administrative areas in precisely the same way as Avon. However, they remain useful areas for categories such as shopping centres. (By the way, even if you are using the term shopping centre to mean an enclosed mall, many opened before 1996, such as Merry Hill (1985) - if that is relevant.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep until some one can suggest a better means of categorising things (not just shopping centres) in the former county. Here in the West Midlands, the former metropolitan county continues to be used as a postal address. Four of the seven boroughs work together as the Black Country. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Collections of the Getty
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 17:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Collections of the Getty to Category:Collections of the J. Paul Getty Museum
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the main article. Or what I think is the main article. The short form is somewhat ambiguous since it could be referring to the Getty Villa or the Getty Center. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. I find "Getty Museum" is pretty standard usage by everyone except the Getty bunch themselves, perhaps we could rename to that. The Getty Villa and the collections visible at the Getty Center are the two locations of the J. Paul Getty Museum, so ambiguity is not an issue in fact. Really there is no need to change I think. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.